Kindred v. California Dep't of Mental Health

Full title: RICHARD S. KINDRED, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 11, 2011

1:08-cv-01321-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2011)

Opinion

1:08-cv-01321-AWI-GSA-PC

09-11-2011

RICHARD S. KINDRED, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 25.)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 17.)

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO EITHER:

(1) FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR

(2) NOTIFY COURT THAT HE IS WILLING TO PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Richard S. Kindred ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 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 July 12, 2011, Findings and Recommendations were entered, recommending that (1) the motion to dismiss filed on December 14, 2010 by defendants Ahlin and Devine be granted; (2) certain claims be dismissed without leave to amend; and (3) certain claims be dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 25.) On August 10, 2011, Defendants filed a response to the findings and recommendations, and on August 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the Findings and Recommendations. (Docs. 28, 29.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) 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 proper analysis.

Defendants have filed a motion to quash and in conjunction, have requested the Court to set aside the Magistrate Judge's finding that defendant Fields was served with the complaint. (Doc. 28.) The motion to quash shall be referred back to the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 12, 2011, are ADOPTED in full;
2. The motion to dismiss filed on December 14, 2010 by defendants Ahlin and Devine is GRANTED, as follows:

(1) Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for monetary damages against defendants Ahlin and Devine in their official capacities are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend;
(2) Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for monetary damages against Defendants Ahlin and Devine in their official capacities are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend;
(3) Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against defendant Ahlin are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim against her, without leave to amend; and
(4) Plaintiff's individual capacity RLUIPA claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend;

3. Upon the Court's sua sponte screening of the Complaint, it is ordered that:

(1) Plaintiff states cognizable § 1983 claims in the Complaint for money damages, for the violation of Plaintiff's rights to freely exercise his religion under the First Amendment, against defendants Barbara Devine and Linda Fields;
(2) Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is DENIED, with prejudice;
(3) Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for monetary damages against defendant Fields in her official capacity are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend;
(4) Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for monetary damages against defendant Fields in her official capacity are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend;
(5) Plaintiff's individual capacity RLUIPA claims against defendant Fields are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend; and
(6) Plaintiff's remaining official capacity RLUIPA claims are DISMISSED, with leave to amend;

4. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to either: (1) file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Findings and Recommendations, or (2) notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and is instead willing to proceed only against defendants Barbara Devine and Linda Fields under § 1983 for money damages, for the violation of his rights to freely exercise his religion under the First Amendment; and
5. This case, including Defendants' motion to quash, is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE