(PC) Lucero v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Timoithy Paul Lucero, No. 2:23-cv-02844-KJM-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 State of California, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated and is not represented by an attorney. The case is referred to the 18 | assigned Magistrate Judge under this court’s local rules. The previously assigned Magistrate 19 | Judge dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff amended his 20 | complaint, ECF No. 11, and the previously assigned Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing 21 | the complaint without leave to amend, ECF No. 12, finding the amended complaint, like its 22 | predecessor, does not “demonstrate that plaintiff has a sincerely held religious belief,” id. at 4. 23 | Plaintiff objects. ECF No. 14. 24 The court has reviewed the file de novo. Although plaintiffs professed beliefs are 25 | unconventional and perhaps self-contradictory, a federal court cannot reject an otherwise viable 26 | claim based on its assessment that a person’s religious beliefs are irrational, unreasonable or 27 | flawed. See, e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 724 (2014). The court also 28 | declines to make any decision based on its assessment of plaintiffs credibility or sincerity, at this

1 | early stage of the case. The court declines to adopt the previously assigned Magistrate Judge’s 2 | recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to allege a sincerely held religious 3 | belief. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial 4 | proceedings. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: February 24, 2025. oUt 7 = | ¥ FU/ Fees STATES DISTRICT JUDGE