-SKO (PC) Ross v. Hedgpeth et al, No. 1:2009cv00063 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Dismissing Certain Claims, and Granting Plaintiff Leave to File an Amended Complaint as Limited Herein, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/9/2011. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
-SKO (PC) Ross v. Hedgpeth et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KEITH ROSS, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-063 AWI SKO (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AS LIMITED HEREIN v. A. HEDGEPETH, et al., Defendants. (Docs. 1 and 7) 14 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE / 15 16 Plaintiff Keith Ross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 17 action on January 12, 2009. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On January 26, 2011, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and recommended 20 dismissal of certain claims without leave to amend and dismissal of other claims with leave to 21 amend. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff’s objection filed on February 25, 2011, was stricken from the 22 record for lack of signature by order filed March 2, 2011, and Plaintiff was granted a thirty-day 23 extension of time to file a signed objection. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not 24 renewed his objection. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 27 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 full; 2. 5 6 3. Plaintiff’s claim for denial of access to the courts is dismissed from the action, without prejudice but without leave to amend; 4. 9 Plaintiff’s free exercise and RLUIPA claims against Defendant Flores, Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim, and Plaintiff’s equal protection claim are dismissed, 10 11 Plaintiff’s RICO claim is dismissed from the action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 7 8 The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on January 26, 2011, in without prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file an 12 amended complaint, limited to curing the deficiencies in his free exercise, RLUIPA, 13 Establishment Clause, and equal protection claims; 14 6. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty days, this action will 15 proceed on his original complaint against Defendant Hedgpeth on his First 16 Amendment free exercise and RLUIPA claims; and 17 7. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint that fails to comply with the restrictions set 18 forth in this order, the amended complaint will be stricken in whole or in part as 19 deemed appropriate by the Court. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: 0m8i78 June 9, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.