Hartmann v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2010cv00045 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 72 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Certain Defendants and Claims One, Two, Three, and Four, with Leave to Amend Count One within Thirty Days signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/11/2010. Amended Count One due by 7/14/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

Hartmann v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SHAWNA HARTMANN AND CAREN HILL, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00045-LJO-SMS 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND COUNT ONE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 14 Defendants. 15 (Docs. 29 & 72) / 16 Plaintiffs Shawna Hartmann and Caren Hill, inmates incarcerated at Central California 17 Women’s Facility (“CCWF”), by their attorney Barbara McGraw, filed their First Amended 18 Complaint (“complaint”) alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Religious Land Use and 19 Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.) (“RLUIPA”), and California 20 law. Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Arnold 21 Schwarzenegger, State of California, CCWF, Matthew Cate, Suzanne Hubbard, Barry Smith, 22 Nola Grannis, Mary Lattimore, Division of Adult Institutions (“DAI”), Division of Community 23 Partnerships (“DCP”), and Del Sayles-Owen moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint for 24 failure to state a claim. F.R.Civ.P. §12(b)(6). 25 In accordance with the District Court’s order (Doc. 57), Magistrate Judge Sandra M. 26 Snyder considered all the written materials submitted and recommended that the Defendants’ 27 motion be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the magistrate recommended 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 dismissal of Defendants Schwarzenegger, Cate, Hubbard, Sayles-Owen, Grannis, DAI, DCP, 2 CCWF, Smith, and the State of California, as well as Counts Two, Three, and Four, and those 3 claims against Defendant Lattimore relating to her role as hearing officer. Although Claim One, 4 alleging violation of the Establishment Clause, failed to state a claim as alleged in the Complaint, 5 because substitution of an appropriate defendant would render the claim cognizable, the 6 magistrate recommended that Claim One be dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days. 7 Finally, the magistrate found Claim Five, alleging violation of Article I, Section 4 of the 8 California Constitution stated a cognizable claim but recommended that the Court exercise 9 pendant jurisdiction only if Plaintiffs successfully amend Claim One to state a cognizable claim. 10 The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections to the Findings 11 and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed timely amended 12 objections on June 10, 2010, and supplemented those objections on June 11, 2020 (Docs. 75 & 13 76). 14 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 15 reviewed this case de novo and has considered both Plaintiffs’ objections and the Findings and 16 Recommendations. The Court will not discuss Plaintiffs’ extensive objections in detail. It notes, 17 however, that Plaintiffs have misconstrued the recommendation that they be permitted to amend 18 Claim One to substitute an appropriate defendant to require them to name as Defendant the 19 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a substitution which Plaintiffs correctly 20 point out is impermissible under the Eleventh Amendment. A careful reading of the Findings 21 and Recommendations indicates that “Claim One fails to identify any Defendant linked to the 22 alleged wrong,” and that “substitution of one or more appropriate Defendants would render the 23 claim cognizable.” The identity of the appropriate defendant(s) for an amended Claim One is left 24 to Plaintiffs (Doc. 72 at page 16, lines 6-17.) Provisions of the Eleventh Amendment do not 25 apply to Claim Five, alleging violation of the California Constitution, for which the magistrate 26 recognized CDCR as an appropriately named Defendant (Doc. 72 at page 16, lines 18-27). 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 2 Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper legal analysis. Accordingly, IT IS 3 HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed April 28, 2010, are adopted 4 in full. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: b9ed48 June 11, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.