(PC) Matlock v. Kern County et al, No. 1:2019cv01368 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER holding FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS in abeyance; allowing Plaintiff to file sworn Declaration signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/19/2023. (30-Day Filing Deadline). (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD A. MATLOCK, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01368-JLT-CDB (PC) ORDER HOLDING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN ABEYANCE; ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SWORN DECLARATION Thirty Day Deadline Defendants. 16 17 18 Richard A. Matlock filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to hold Defendants 19 liable for failure to protect him from an assault by another inmate in violation of the Fourteenth 20 Amendment. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on non-exhaustion of 23 administrative remedies. (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty-day extension of time to 24 respond, which the Court granted. (Docs. 56, 57.) After Plaintiff failed to file a timely response, 25 the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not deem the 26 motion for summary judgment unopposed. (Doc. 60.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to 27 show cause or file a response to the motion for summary judgment. 28 The assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations deeming 1 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment unopposed and recommending the Court grant the 2 motion based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing the 3 complaint. (Doc. 64.) Specifically, the magistrate judge determined that Defendants met their 4 burden to show Plaintiff failed to utilize the inmate grievance procedures at the Kern County 5 Sheriff’s Office and submit a grievance in this matter. (Id.) 6 Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. 7 No. 65.) In his objections, Plaintiff admits he never filed an administrative complaint, but he 8 argues the administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. Upon his return to the 9 county jail from the medical facility, Plaintiff indicated that he wished to file a report about the 10 incident, but officers told him it “would be a waste of time” and denied him the paperwork. (Id. 11 at 1.) Plaintiff further argues that any effort to exhaust would have been futile, given that he was 12 transferred from County custody to a federal facility in a different state. (Id. at 2.) 13 The Court notes that the appropriate time to raise these arguments was in response to the 14 motion for summary judgment. The Court provided Plaintiff with ample opportunities to respond 15 to the motion for summary judgment, but Plaintiff failed to file a timely response, seek another 16 extension of time, or explain why he did not take advantage of opportunities to oppose the 17 motion. Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond, the magistrate judge properly deemed the motion for 18 summary judgment to be opposed. It remains unclear why Plaintiff failed to timely file an 19 opposition, and Plaintiff is warned that he must be more diligent in the future. 20 Nonetheless, the information contained in the objections may be material to the 21 exhaustion analysis. However, Plaintiff’s objections are not signed under perjury, so do not 22 constitute evidence the Court can consider on summary judgment. Therefore, the Court will hold 23 the findings and recommendations in abeyance and will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to 24 supplement the record with a sworn declaration. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 25 1. 26 27 28 The findings and recommendations filed on April 10, 2023, (Doc. 64), are HELD IN ABEYANCE. 2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff may supplement the record with a declaration, sworn under the penalty of perjury, setting forth any facts of 2 1 which he is personally aware that he believes are relevant to the question of 2 whether administrative remedies were unavailable to him. 3 3. declaration or concise legal brief within twenty-one days of Plaintiff’s response. 4 5 If Plaintiff files a responsive declaration, Defendants may file a responsive 4. If Plaintiff fails to file a declaration within the allotted thirty days, the Court will rule on the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the present record. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 19, 2023 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
