(PC) Lee v. Scribner, et al, No. 1:2004cv05587 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 34 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING 33 Motion to Dismiss, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/14/2009. CASE CLOSED. (Sondheim, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Lee v. Scribner, et al Doc. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GEORGE LEE, 11 Plaintiff, 1: 04 CV 5587 AWI WMW PC 12 vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS (#34) 13 A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., 14 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS (#33) Defendants. 15 _____________________/ 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter 18 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 19 Rule 72-302. 20 On September 10, 2008, Findings and Recommendations were entered, 21 recommending dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative 22 remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). On September 26, 2008, Plaintiff filed objections to 23 the Findings and Recommendations. Defendants filed a reply on October 14, 2008. On 24 November 3, 2008, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ reply, and on November 17, 25 2008, Defendants moved to strike the November 3, 2008 filing as an improper filing. 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 2 73-305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 proper analysis. Defendants have provided evidence that Plaintiff did not complete available 5 administrative remedies prior to filing suit. In the objections and opposition, Plaintiff contends 6 that he did file an inmate grievance concerning the facts at issue in this action but his appeal was 7 not processed. Plaintiff claims that at the time the appeal was made, appeals were generally not 8 processed in the time required by prison regulations. As evidence of his assertions, Plaintiff 9 provides letters sent to him by the Warden and Deputy Warden in response to letters Plaintiff 10 apparently sent to the Warden and Deputy Warden in which he appears to have complained that 11 appeals were not being timely processed. These letters, however, make no reference to any 12 specific appeal Plaintiff may have filed. Plaintiff has provided no evidence, such as his own 13 declaration signed under penalty of perjury, stating that he filed an administrative appeal 14 concerning the facts at issue in this action prior to filing suit. Thus, the court has no choice but 15 to grant the motion to dismiss. Because the court finds Petitioner has provided no evidence to support his 16 17 assertion that he did file an appeal about the events at issue in this action, but it was not 18 processed, it is unnecessary to determine whether Defendants’ motion should be granted on the 19 additional ground that Plaintiff did not timely oppose the motion.1 As such, the court declines to 20 adopt those portions of the Findings and Recommendations that recommend dismissal for 21 Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion. 22 // 23 24 25 26 1 In the objections, Plaintiff provides some evidence that his medical condition prevented him from filing an opposition. 2 1 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 3 September 10, 2008, are adopted to the extent they find Plaintiff did not 4 exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit; 5 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 6 3. This action is dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); and 7 4. 8 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 0m8i78 February 14, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
