Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pouncil v. Tilton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 4, 2009

MADERO POUNCIL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending before the court is plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Tilton, Foston, and Martel. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") alleging that defendants have instituted a policy which imposes a substantial burden on the practice of his religion. Plaintiff, who is Muslim, is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. According to plaintiff, central tenets of his faith is that he marry, that he consummate the marriage, and thereafter maintain a sexual relationship with his wife. Plaintiff states that defendants have implemented a regulation which prohibits "intimate time (family visiting) for Muslim inmates serving a life without parole term. . . ." He states that this makes it impossible for him to consummate his marriage and maintain a sexual relationship with his wife. Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the regulation.

The complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief. If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds that service is appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court authorizes service on the following defendant(s): TILTON, FOSTON, and MARTEL;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Three completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Four copies of the endorsed complaint.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order:

1 completed summons form;

completed USM-285 form(s); and

copies of the complaint.

20090504

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.