Rhoden v. Department of State Hospitals, 1:18-cv-00101-LJO-SAB (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190502c57
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY [ECF No. 59] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for leave to file supplemental legal authority in support of his complaint, filed April 29, 2019. On January 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY [ECF No. 59] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for leave to file supplemental legal authority in support of his complaint, filed April 29, 2019. On January 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's m..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY [ECF No. 59]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for leave to file supplemental legal authority in support of his complaint, filed April 29, 2019.
On January 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add Defendant Stefanie Heggen as a Defendant and to add a fourth cause of action for a violation of his right to practice his religion in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, which was enacted in response to the constitutional flaws with Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 identified in City of Boerne v. P.F. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
Plaintiff's request to provide supplemental legal authority in support of his claims is not necessary. Plaintiff's factual allegations are accepted at true and need not be bolstered by legal authority at the pleading stage. Accordingly, Plaintiff's second motion to supplement the fifth amended complaint with additional legal authority is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
