(PC) Elias v. Kinross et al, No. 2:2017cv02106 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/4/2019 ORDERING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this action and RECOMMENDING this case proceed only on the First Amendment free exercise claim against defen dants CO Kinross, Lt. Gilliam, and Lt. Appleberry, and the RLUIPA claim against Warden Fox. All other claims and defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEIRON M. ELIAS, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-2106 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND J. KINROSS, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On 18 October 30, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found it to state only a First 19 Amendment free exercise claim against defendants CO Kinross, Lt. Gilliam, and Lt. Appleberry, 20 and a RLUIPA claim against Warden Fox. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff was then given the option to 21 stand on his complaint, dismiss this action, or proceed on the complaint as screened. While he 22 originally sought to amend his complaint, he has recently filed a notice of his intent to proceed 23 with the pleading as screened. (See ECF Nos. 11, 18.) 24 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to this action; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case proceed only on the First Amendment 27 free exercise claim against defendants CO Kinross, Lt. Gilliam, and Lt. Appleberry, and the 28 RLUIPA claim against Warden Fox. All other claims and defendants should be dismissed with 1 1 prejudice. 2 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 3 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 4 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 5 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 6 and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 7 days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 9 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 Dated: February 4, 2019 11 12 13 14 /DLB7; 15 DB/Inbox/Substantive/elia2106.scrn F&R 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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.
