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.

Paul Anthony Rupe v. M. Cate

January 24, 2012

PAUL ANTHONY RUPE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. CATE, R.J. SUBIA, M. MARTEL,
D. LONG, W. KNIPP, G. MACHADO, R.M. KUDLATA, A.L. CHAMBERLAIN, V. BUENO, B. BUENO, A. GREEN,
K. RUTHERFORD, J. TEXEIRA, L. MARTINEZ, D. BAPTISTA, S. BARNHAM, KURIC, S. MUHAMMED, TAKEHARI, LOCKHART, J. BURKARD, M. LACKNER, B. RATHJEN, M. BENNETT, L.B. REAVES, M. ALLEN, R. NAKANOTO, B.M. CASH, C. FORTSON, J. SEBOK, A. OMEIRA, BOWEN, K. BRADFORD, M. BEUCHTER, P. VANNI, L. RUSHING, L. JACKSON, AND D.J. WILLIAMS,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward F. Shea United States District Judge

ORDER SCREENING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE- RELATED DOCUMENTS

Before the Court is pro se state prisoner Plaintiff Paul Anthony Rupe's Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 101. Mr. Rupe asserts nine claims against a total of thirty-eight Defendants, alleging numerous violations of his federal statutory and constitutional rights. In accordance with the Court's November 21, 2011 Order, ECF No. 100, the Court screens Mr. Rupe's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses aspects of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and orders Plaintiff to prepare and return service documents so that the U.S. Marshals may serve the complaint on all heretofore-unserved named Defendants.

I. Mr. Rupe's Second Amended Complaint

Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and claims that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief are properly dismissed. Id. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2) & 1915(e)(2).

After review, the Court finds that the complaint as a whole states plausible constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as plausible claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et. seq. (RLUIPA). However, several of Mr. Rupe's claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and must be dismissed.

Several of Mr. Rupe's claims seek injunctive relief against Defendant Martel, who is the warden of Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP), and one of Mr. Rupe's claims seeks injunctive relief against Defendants Rathjen, Bennett, Reaves, and Nakanoto, who are correctional counselors at MCSP (Defendant Nakanoto is alleged to be a classification services representative for the California Department of Corrections). As noted in the Court's February 1, 2010 Order, Mr. Rupe's claims for injunctive relief against officials at MSCP are moot because Mr. Rupe was transferred from MCSP during June 2009 and he has no reasonable expectation that he will be transferred to that facility again. See ECF No. 48 at 8-9; see also Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding prisoner claim for injunctive relief moot upon prisoner's transfer to new facility). As such, the following claims are dismissed as they relate to Defendant Martel: Mr. Rupe's First Amendment Free Exercise claim, Mr. Rupe's Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim, and Mr. Rupe's RLUIPA reasonable accommodation claim. Additionally, Mr. Rupe's Eighth Amendment claim for injunctive relief is dismissed as it relates to Defendants Rathjen, Bennett, Reaves, and Nakanoto.

Mr. Rupe's remaining claims state plausible claims for relief and are not dismissed. Nothing in this Order, however, should be read to preclude or discourage Defendants from filing a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment with regard to any or all of Mr. Rupe's remaining claims.

II. Service of Defendants Martinez, Jackson, and Williams

Of the thirty-eight Defendants named in Mr. Rupe's Second Amended Complaint, the following thirty-five have previously been served: M. Cate, R.J. Subia, M. Martel, D. Long, W. Knipp, G. Machado, R.M. Kudlata, A.L. Chamberlain, V. Bueno, B. Bueno, A. Green, K. Rutherford, J. Texeira, D. Baptista, S. Barnham, Kuric, S. Muhammed, Takehari, Lockhart, J. Burkard, M. Lackner, B. Rathjen, M. Bennett, L.B. Reaves, M. Allen, R. Nakanoto, B.M. Cash, C. Fortson, J. Sebok, A. Omeira, Bowen, K. Bradford, M. Beuchter, P. Vanni, and L. Rushing. Three Defendants have not been served: Defendant L. Martinez was previously named in this lawsuit but had not been served, see ECF No. 98, and Defendants L. Jackson and D.J. Williams have not previously been named.

Accordingly, the Court orders Mr. Rupe to prepare and return service documents for L. Martinez, L. Jackson, and D.J. Williams so that the U.S. Marshals may serve the Second Amended Complaint on these heretofore-unserved Defendants. Mr. Rupe must prepare and return the service documents, as well as file the attached Notice of Submission of Documents, within forty-five (45) days of the entry of this Order.

III. Mr. Rupe's Motion to Extend Discovery

Also before the Court is Mr. Rupe's Motion to Extend Discovery for 90 Days After the Answering of the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 102. Mr. Rupe asks the Court to extend the currently-set discovery cutoff of February 20, 2012, in light of his Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 101, which was filed on December 14, 2011. Because Mr. Rupe's Second Amended Complaint names two additional Defendants, the discovery stage of this case must be re-opened. Accordingly, the Court strikes the currently-set discovery cutoff of February 20, 2012. Once Defendants have filed an answer or answers to Mr. Rupe's Second Amended Complaint, the Court will issue a scheduling order setting pre-trial deadlines, a pretrial conference date, and a trial date.

IV. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike

Finally, it has come to the Court's attention that Mr. Rupe's October 11, 2011-filed Motion to Strike and Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 95, is still pending. The Court had construed this motion as a reply in addressing Mr. Rupe's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 92, which the Court denied in its October 13, 2011 Order ...


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.