UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 11, 2010
SHAWNA HARTMANN AND CAREN HILL, PLAINTIFFS,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND COUNT ONE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
(Docs. 29 & 72)
Plaintiffs Shawna Hartmann and Caren Hill, inmates incarcerated at Central California Women's Facility ("CCWF"), by their attorney Barbara McGraw, filed their First Amended Complaint ("complaint") alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.) ("RLUIPA"), and California law. Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), Arnold Schwarzenegger, State of California, CCWF, Matthew Cate, Suzanne Hubbard, Barry Smith, Nola Grannis, Mary Lattimore, Division of Adult Institutions ("DAI"), Division of Community Partnerships ("DCP"), and Del Sayles-Owen moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. F.R.Civ.P. §12(b)(6).
In accordance with the District Court's order (Doc. 57), Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder considered all the written materials submitted and recommended that the Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the magistrate recommended dismissal of Defendants Schwarzenegger, Cate, Hubbard, Sayles-Owen, Grannis, DAI, DCP, CCWF, Smith, and the State of California, as well as Counts Two, Three, and Four, and those claims against Defendant Lattimore relating to her role as hearing officer. Although Claim One, alleging violation of the Establishment Clause, failed to state a claim as alleged in the Complaint, because substitution of an appropriate defendant would render the claim cognizable, the magistrate recommended that Claim One be dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days. Finally, the magistrate found Claim Five, alleging violation of Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution stated a cognizable claim but recommended that the Court exercise pendant jurisdiction only if Plaintiffs successfully amend Claim One to state a cognizable claim.
The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed timely amended objections on June 10, 2010, and supplemented those objections on June 11, 2020 (Docs. 75 & 76).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has reviewed this case de novo and has considered both Plaintiffs' objections and the Findings and Recommendations. The Court will not discuss Plaintiffs' extensive objections in detail. It notes, however, that Plaintiffs have misconstrued the recommendation that they be permitted to amend Claim One to substitute an appropriate defendant to require them to name as Defendant the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a substitution which Plaintiffs correctly point out is impermissible under the Eleventh Amendment. A careful reading of the Findings and Recommendations indicates that "Claim One fails to identify any Defendant linked to the alleged wrong," and that "substitution of one or more appropriate Defendants would render the claim cognizable." The identity of the appropriate defendant(s) for an amended Claim One is left to Plaintiffs (Doc. 72 at page 16, lines 6-17.) Provisions of the Eleventh Amendment do not apply to Claim Five, alleging violation of the California Constitution, for which the magistrate recognized CDCR as an appropriately named Defendant (Doc. 72 at page 16, lines 18-27).
Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper legal analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed April 28, 2010, are adopted in full.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.