Wallace v. Ducart
Filing
44
ORDER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/19/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
GEORGE ELLIS WALLACE,
Plaintiff,
8
C. E. DUCART, et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER
v.
9
10
Case No. 16-cv-03798-SI
12
13
A.
Adoption Of Magistrate Judge’s Rulings, With One Modification
14
This action was originally assigned to a magistrate judge who determined that, liberally
15
construed, the pro se amended complaint stated cognizable claims for violations of Wallace’s First
16
Amendment right to the free exercise of his religious beliefs and his rights under the Religious
17
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (RLUIPA). Other claims and
18
defendants were dismissed. See Docket No. 25.
19
Although plaintiff and some defendants consented to proceed before a magistrate judge,
20
other defendants were dismissed from the action; the unserved defendants did not consent to
21
proceed before a magistrate judge. This action was reassigned to the undersigned after the Ninth
22
Circuit issued Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that all named
23
parties, including unserved defendants, must consent before a magistrate judge has jurisdiction
24
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) to hear and decide a case. The court then issued an order explaining
25
to the parties why the action had been reassigned from a magistrate judge to a district judge,
26
describing the limits on a magistrate judge’s authority when there was not full consent, and giving
27
the parties an opportunity to object to any of the magistrate judge’s rulings. See Docket No. 42 at
28
1-2. The court further informed the parties that, once it received any objections and responses
1
thereto, it would “‘determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
2
properly objected to.’” Id. at 2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)).
3
4
No party objected to any of the magistrate judge’s rulings, and the deadline by which to do
so has passed.
Notwithstanding the absence of any objection to the magistrate judge’s rulings, the court
6
now notes the existence of an additional claim in the first amended complaint that was not
7
mentioned in the earlier orders.
8
discriminated against him based on his religion, liberally construed, state a cognizable claim for a
9
violation of his right to equal protection. See, e.g., Docket No. 21 at 10 (alleging that plaintiff was
10
fired “from [his] job unjust[ly] because of [his] religious belief,” and suffered other wrongs
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
because of his religious beliefs). In the prison or jail context, the Equal Protection Clause requires
12
that an inmate who is an adherent of a minority religion be afforded a “reasonable opportunity of
13
pursuing his faith comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners who adhere to
14
conventional religious precepts,” Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972) (Buddhist inmates must
15
be given opportunity to pursue faith comparable to that given Christian inmates).
16
17
Specifically, plaintiff’s allegations that the defendants
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
The findings and recommendations in the October 31, 2016 order granting
18
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 9); the October 31, 2016 order of service (Docket
19
No. 10); and the August 25, 2017 order granting defendants’ motion to change time to file
20
dispositive motion (Docket No. 32) are adopted in full.
21
2.
The findings and recommendations in the May 15, 2017 order of partial
22
dismissal and of service; granting motion for screening and denying defendant Ducart’s motion to
23
dismiss (Docket No. 25) are adopted in full with the following modification: In addition to claims
24
for violations of plaintiff’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion and for a
25
violation of plaintiff’s rights under RLUIPA, the first amended complaint also states a cognizable
26
claim against defendants Richards, Ducart, Ramirez, and Gutierrez for a violation of plaintiff’s
27
right to equal protection.
28
2
1
B.
Briefing Schedule To Address The Equal Protection Claim
2
Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, which plaintiff has opposed. The
3
parties addressed the First Amendment religious freedom and RLUIPA claims, but did not address
4
the newly-identified equal protection claim. It is inefficient for the parties to have to start over,
5
and file a completely new motion for summary judgment, opposition, and reply. Instead, it is
6
preferable to use the existing briefing and to give them an opportunity to file a supplement to the
7
motion, opposition and reply to address the equal protection claim. The parties may submit
8
argument and evidence in their supplements concerning the equal protection claim that the court
9
now has identified.
The court now sets the following briefing schedule: Defendants must file and serve a
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
supplement to their motion for summary judgment to address the equal protection claim no later
12
than May 4, 2018. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel any supplement to his
13
opposition to the motion for summary judgment no later than June 1, 2018. Defendants must file
14
and serve any supplement to their reply brief no later than June 15, 2018.
15
Plaintiff is reminded to read “Defendants’ Rand Warning To Plaintiff Regarding Opposing
16
Summary Judgment” that was served with defendants’ original motion for summary judgment,
17
and to read the notice regarding summary judgment that was included with the order of partial
18
dismissal and of service (Docket No. 25). These warnings/notices have important information
19
about opposing motions for summary judgment.
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2018
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?