(PC) Lucero v. State of California

Opinion

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

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