IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 30, 2012
RONALD J. LUCERO, PLAINTIFF,
STEPHEN MAYBERG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 25, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Both defendants and plaintiff have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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 January 25, 2012 are adopted in full;
2. Defendants Schwarzenegger/Brown and Cate are dismissed for all claims.
3. The motion to dismiss, filed on March 3, 2011 (Docket No. 18), brought by defendants Benchman, DeMorales, Griffith, Holt, Knapp, Mayberg, Mills, Radavsky, Vazquez, Walker and the State of California is granted with respect to dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend as to these claims against individual defendants within twenty-one days.
4. The motion to dismiss, filed on May 4, 2011 (Docket No. 23), brought by defendants County of San Luis Obispo, Patrick Hodges, Robert Thompson and Kelly Kenitz is granted as to any claims arising under the Eighth Amendment with leave to amend within twenty-one days.
5. The individual defendants are dismissed from plaintiff's claims under the ADA and RLUIPA, and these claims proceed only against defendant State of California (injunctive relief claims only under RLUIPA);
6. The motion to dismiss, filed on March 3, 2011 (Docket No. 18), brought by defendants Benchman, DeMorales, Griffith, Holt, Knapp, Mayberg, Mills, Radavsky, Vazquez, Walker and the State of California is further granted in part and denied in part:
A) Granted with prejudice as to plaintiff's § 1983 claims against defendant State of California;
B) Granted as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendants Griffith, Holt, Mills and Benchman as to claim V (Personal Property) altogether;
C) Denied as to plaintiff's claims implicating a federal liberty interest against the following: defendants Mayberg, DeMorales and Knapp in claims I, II and III; defendant Radavsky in claims I and III, defendant Holt in claim III;
D) Denied as to defendants Vazquez and Walker in claim IV, as to 2 plaintiff's claims implicating a federal liberty interest;
E) Granted with respect to all defendants as to plaintiff's claims of a violation of his Equal Protection rights and right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment.
6. The motion to dismiss, filed on May 4, 2011 (Docket No. 23), brought by defendants County of San Luis Obispo, Patrick Hedges, Robert Thompson and Kelly Kenitz is denied with respect to plaintiff's claim of a violation of his constitutional rights to the extent plaintiff was retained in the custody of the County's jail without due process based on a federal liberty interest arising from state statute.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.