Hartmann v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2010cv00045 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 64 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of California State Personnel Board and Individual Capacity Defendant Members of California State Personnel Board signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 04/22/2010. Richard Costigan; Sean Harrigan; Tom Maely; Anne Sheehan; California State Personnel Board and Patricia Clarey terminated from action. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
Hartmann v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al Doc. 71 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 CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY DEFENDANT MEMBERS OF CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD 14 Defendants. 15 (Docs. 23 & 64) / 16 In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged five claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, 17 the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.) 18 (“RLUIPA”), and California law. Among other things, they contended that Defendant California 19 State Personnel Board (“CSPB”) and its board members Sean Harrigan, Richard Costigan, 20 Patricia Clarey, Maeley Tom, and Anne Sheehan (collectively, the “CSPB Defendants”) are 21 responsible for the discriminatory hiring of CDCR chaplains that illegally and unconstitutionally 22 favors certain religious denominations. The CSPB Defendants moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ 23 First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. F.R.Civ.P. §12(b)(6). 24 In accordance with the District Court’s order (Doc. 57), Magistrate Judge Sandra M. 25 Snyder considered all the written materials submitted and recommended that the CSPB 26 Defendants’ motion be granted and that judgment of dismissal be entered in their favor. The 27 Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections to the Findings and 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed timely amended objections 2 on April 15, 2010 (Doc. 68). 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 4 reviewed this case de novo and has considered both Plaintiffs’ objections and the magistrate 5 judge’s recommendation. Despite Plaintiffs’ concerns about a so-called “circle of non- 6 accountability,” “[f]ederal courts sit not to supervise prisons but to enforce the constitutional 7 rights of all ‘persons,’ including prisoners.” Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321 (1972). In addition, 8 despite Plaintiffs’ out-of-context quotation from a brief submitted in an unrelated case, CSPB’s 9 role is to administer the civil service system, not to promulgate CDCR policy. In the event that 10 Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims result in this Court’s striking down CDCR’s regulations and 11 procedures governing prison chaplains, the Court’s role is not to re-write state policies, 12 procedures, laws or regulations, nor to shepherd any revised job descriptions through the civil 13 service system. 14 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 15 Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper legal analysis. Accordingly, IT IS 16 HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations, filed March 15, 2010, are 17 adopted in full, and Defendant California State Personnel Board (“CSPB”) and its board 18 members Sean Harrigan, Richard Costigan, Patricia Clarey, Maeley Tom, and Anne Sheehan are 19 hereby dismissed from this action with prejudice. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: b9ed48 April 22, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 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.