(PC) Comundoiwilla v. Evans, No. 1:2004cv06721 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's First Amended Claims, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims, and RLUIPA Claims Against Defendant Liles be Dismissed and Defendant Liles be Dismissed from this Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/26/2010. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/1/2010. (Sondheim, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Comundoiwilla v. Evans Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LAMAVIS A. COMUNDOIWILLA, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06721-LJO-SKO PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS M.S. EVANS, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Lamavis A. Comundoiwilla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 16 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 23, 2010, the 17 Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint stated some cognizable 18 claims against certain Defendants. (Doc. #23.) The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to state any 19 other claims against any other Defendants. The Court ordered Plaintiff either to file an amended 20 complaint or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. 21 On March 22, 2010, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found 22 to be cognizable.1 Based on Plaintiff’s notice, these Findings and Recommendations now issue. See 23 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies 24 and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim). 25 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 26 27 28 1 In Plaintiff’s notice, Plaintiff also expressed an intent to amend his complaint later pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to state claims against Defendant Liles. The Court will refrain from addressing the issue of whether Plaintiff’s prospective amendment is appropriate until Plaintiff files his motion to amend. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, and RLUIPA2 claims against Defendant Liles be dismissed; and 2 3 2. Defendant Liles be dismissed from this action. 4 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 6 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 7 objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 9 shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 10 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 11 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: ie14hj April 26, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 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.
