Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Walker v. Cate

November 18, 2010

DENNIS WALKER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Medical Facility ("CMF") in Vacaville, California. Plaintiff proceeds without counsel and seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court now reviews plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.*fn1

Plaintiff challenges the "Inmate Housing Plan," implemented by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to allegedly force racial integration when assigning state prisoners to cells. Plaintiff states that he is an Aryan Christian/Odinist who will be injured or killed if he is celled with an inmate of another race and religion. Plaintiff states that he refused a cell-integration order on October 7, 2008, resulting in his placement in administrative segregation and conviction on a disciplinary violation report. Plaintiff contends that the challenged "Inmate Housing Plan," both in substance and as applied to plaintiff, violates the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.

The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") appears to state potentially cognizable claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), against the only currently named defendants, Matthew Cate, CDCR Secretary, and Kathleen Dickinson,*fn2 CMF Warden.

The Clerk of the Court will therefore be directed to issue the appropriate number of summonses to plaintiff for purposes of service of process. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

Plaintiff shall complete service of process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, within sixty days from the date of this order.*fn3 Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on each defendant together with a summons and a copy of the First Amended Complaint.

Within 120 days from the date of this order, as sequenced below, plaintiff and defendants shall each submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties a status report setting forth the following information:

1. Whether this matter is ready for trial and, if not, why not;

2. Whether additional discovery is deemed necessary. If further discovery is deemed necessary, the party desiring it shall state the nature and scope of the discovery and provide an estimate of the time needed in which to complete it;

3. Whether a pretrial motion is contemplated. If any such motion is contemplated, the party intending to file it shall describe the type of motion and shall state the time needed to file the motion and to complete the time schedule set forth in Local Rule 230(l);

4. A narrative statement of the facts that will be offered by oral or documentary evidence at trial;

5. A list of all exhibits to be offered into evidence at the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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