(PC) Williams v. Weaver et al, No. 2:2008cv00239 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/3/09 ORDERING that the FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS filed 2/26/09 16 are ADOPTED in full; Plaintiff's 3/3/09 and 3/17/09 MOTIONS to amend 20 and 21 are DENIED. This Action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. CASE CLOSED (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Williams v. Weaver et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN PATRICK WILLIAMS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:08-cv-00239-MCE-EFB P Plaintiff, vs. ORDER H. WEAVER, et al., Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 20 On February 26, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections 23 to the findings and recommendations. 24 Plaintiff asserts that his complaint should not be dismissed because of his failure to 25 exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit because he has now exhausted all 26 administrative remedies. Dockets.Justia.com 1 However, the attachments to plaintiff’s objections reveal that he did not exhaust his 2 administrative remedies prior to filing suit because he did not receive a denial from the Director’s 3 Level of Review until March 28, 2008, two months after he commenced this action. A prisoner 4 must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing any papers in federal court and is 5 not entitled to a stay of judicial proceedings in order to exhaust. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 6 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). This 7 defect in plaintiff’s pleading cannot be cured by amendment and thus, plaintiff’s motion to 8 amend, filed with his objections, is denied. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, 10 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 11 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 12 analysis. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 26, 2009, are adopted in 15 full; 16 2. Plaintiff’s March 3 and March 17, 2009 motions to amend are denied; and 17 3. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative 18 19 remedies. Dated: April 3, 2009 20 21 22 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 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.
