From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Soto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 2, 2016
Case No. CV 15-9546-PSG (JPR) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. CV 15-9546-PSG (JPR)

03-02-2016

GEORGE HOWARD WILSON, Plaintiff, v. J.D. SOTO et al., Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has reviewed the Complaint, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the following claims are dismissed from this lawsuit without leave to amend: Plaintiff's (1) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") claims against Defendants in their individual capacity, (2) RLUIPA claims against Defendants in their official capacity to the extent Plaintiff seeks money damages, (3) claim under California Civil Code § 52.3, and (4) § 1983 claims against Defendants in their official capacity to the extent those claims seek money damages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are dismissed from this lawsuit with leave to amend: Plaintiff's (1) Eighth Amendment claim, (2) California Civil Code section 51.7 claim, and (3) § 1983 claims against Defendants J.D. Soto, G. Biaggini, T. Sebra, M. Nunez, and J. Diaz in their individual capacity.

If Plaintiff desires to pursue any of his claims, he is ORDERED to file a First Amended Complaint within 28 days of the date of this Order, remedying the deficiencies discussed in the R&R. The FAC should bear the docket number assigned to this case, be labeled "First Amended Complaint," and be complete in and of itself, without reference to the original Complaint or any other pleading, attachment, or document. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with another Central District of California Civil Rights Complaint Form, CV-66, to facilitate Plaintiff's filing of a FAC if he elects to proceed with this action. Plaintiff is admonished that if he fails to timely file a sufficient FAC, the Court may dismiss this action for failure to diligently prosecute. DATED: 03/02/16

/s/_________

PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Wilson v. Soto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 2, 2016
Case No. CV 15-9546-PSG (JPR) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2016)
Case details for

Wilson v. Soto

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE HOWARD WILSON, Plaintiff, v. J.D. SOTO et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 2, 2016

Citations

Case No. CV 15-9546-PSG (JPR) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2016)

Citing Cases

Acevedo v. City of Farmersville

Therefore, Plaintiff's seventh cause of action for violation of the Unruh Act will be DISMISSED without…