Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lawrence P. Hayes, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California against Guglielminetti and other named defendants. His original complaint, ECF No. 1, was before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which requires review of prisoner complaints against governmental entities, officers, or employees. The court explained that screening also applies when a plaintiff was incarcerated when the action began, even if he was later released, citing Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Department of Corrections. Under § 1915A(b), a complaint or portion of it must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant.
On July 15, 2026, the court issued an earlier screening order, ECF No. 9. It concluded that Hayes states cognizable claims against all named defendants under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, known as RLUIPA. It also concluded that his due process claims about the seizure of property, and his conspiracy claim, were not cognizable as pleaded. The court gave him an opportunity to file an amended complaint and warned that, if he did not do so in the time allowed, it would issue further orders and findings and recommendations to dismiss the non-cognizable claims and to direct service on the cognizable ones. The findings do not describe the underlying facts, the specific religious practice at issue, or why the other claims fell short. Those details appear only in the earlier order, which was not provided.
The Court’s Holding
On October 16, 2026, Magistrate Judge Ila C. Deiss issued findings and recommendations noting that the time to amend had passed and Hayes had not filed an amended complaint. The court therefore recommends two things: that the action proceed on the original complaint as to his claims against all named defendants under the First Amendment and RLUIPA, and that his due process and conspiracy claims be dismissed.
These are recommendations, not a final ruling. They go to the assigned district judge, Troy L. Nunley, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections within 14 days after being served, and responses are due within 14 days after objections are served. Failure to object in time may waive the right to appeal, citing Martinez v. Ylst. Until the district judge acts, no dismissal has been entered. The document does not say whether dismissal would be with or without prejudice, and it does not decide the merits of the surviving claims. It only treats them as cognizable at screening.
Separately, the court says it will by separate order direct Hayes to submit the paperwork needed for service of process by the United States Marshal. That order is not part of this document.
Key Takeaways
- The court recommends that First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against all named defendants proceed on the original complaint; this is a screening finding that the claims are cognizable, not a ruling on their merits.
- The due process claims over seized property and the conspiracy claim are recommended for dismissal because Hayes did not amend after being told they were not cognizable as pleaded.
- The document is a recommendation to the district judge, so no claim has yet been dismissed and no judgment has been entered.
- Objections are due within 14 days of service, and failing to object may waive the right to appeal.
- Service by the U.S. Marshal will be arranged through a separate order after Hayes submits the required paperwork.
Why It Matters
The findings show the ordinary sequence of prisoner screening in the Eastern District: an initial order identifies cognizable and deficient claims, the plaintiff is offered a chance to amend, and if he does not, the court recommends dismissing the deficient claims while moving the viable ones toward service. The decision turns on the plaintiff's silence rather than any new analysis.
The matter is unpublished and a magistrate judge's recommendation, so it carries no precedential weight. Its practical effect is limited: the defendants have not yet been served, no defendant has responded, and the strength of the religious exercise claims remains untested. If the district judge adopts the recommendations, the case will proceed on those claims only.