(PC) Knox v. Woodford, et al., No. 1:2007cv00144 - Document 76 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In Full And Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 71 , 74 , 75 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/25/2011. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Knox v. Woodford, et al. Doc. 76 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WILLIE H. KNOX, III, 9 10 CASE NO. 1:07-CV-00144-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 11 JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al., 12 Defendants. (DOCS. 71, 74, 75) 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Willie H. Knox, III (“plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for 17 preliminary injunction. Doc. 71. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On December 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 20 which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the 21 Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within twenty days. Doc. 74. Plaintiff filed an 22 Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on December 20, 2010. Doc. 75. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 24 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 25 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 26 Plaintiff contends that he has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction to be 27 granted. Plaintiff contends that because the Court found Plaintiff had stated cognizable claims, he 28 is likely to succeed on the merits. The requirements for stating a claim are enumerated by Federal 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and recently explained by the United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft 2 v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Likelihood of success on the merits is not the same as stating a 3 cognizable claim, however. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is governed under 42 U.S.C. § 4 1997e, and requires more than Plaintiff’s pleadings in his complaint. 5 Plaintiff also contends that he is not seeking a waiver of the exhaustion requirement, but 6 rather seeks to compel Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) to process Plaintiff’s administrative 7 grievances. Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 8 B. Gricewich, an appeals coordinator at KVSP. As stated previously by this Court, however, 9 Plaintiff has no due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to a specific inmate grievance 10 procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). KVSP is not a party to this 11 action. Plaintiff had previously argued in opposition to other Defendants’ motion to dismiss1 that 12 he was prevented by prison officials from properly exhausting administrative remedies, but did not 13 produce evidence in support. See Findings And Recommendations, filed Feb. 2, 2010, Doc. 55. 14 Plaintiff has also not produced any evidence that he was prevented from exhausting by the present 15 motion. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 1, 2010, is adopted in full; and 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed July 8, 2010, is DENIED. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 January 25, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants Negrete, Hernandez, M Morales, Crisanto, F. Lemos, J. Soto, W anagitis, Reynaga, Pelayo, K. Sweeny, and D. Reese were dismissed from this action on March 10, 2010 for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 2

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.