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.

Fields v. Voss

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 19, 2010

ALLEN L. FIELDS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
W.T. VOSS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 25 & 29)

Plaintiff Allen L. Fields ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, hereinafter "the RLUIPA"). This action is proceeding against Defendants W.T. Voss, Patrick Daley, Mae O'Brien, Linda Clark, and Cindy Maynard on Plaintiff's claim that they violated his rights under the RLUIPA by substantially burdening his religious exercise. (Doc. 13.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On February 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that objections were to be filed within thirty days. No objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 4, 2010, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity from Plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacities for violations of the RLUIPA is DENIED;

3. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's damages claims against them in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds is GRANTED;

4. Defendants' motion to dismiss this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the RLUIPA is DENIED as to Defendants Daley, O'Brien, and Maynard;

5. Defendants' motion to dismiss this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the RLUIPA is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Defendants Clark and Voss; and

6. Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Clark and Voss is dismissed, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sect 1997e(a) without prejudice;

7. Any amended complaint that contains RLUIPA claims as to Defendants Clark and Voss, as explained in the Findings and Recommendations, SHALL BE FILED within thirty days of this order's date of service; and

8. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100319

© 1992-2010 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.