Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00763/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00763-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LENIN GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv763-MMA (KSC)

vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 31]

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 32]

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 17]

JODIE RIVERA, et al.,

Defendants.

On April 12, 2011, Plaintiff Lenin Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

purported civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court issued an order

dismissing Plaintiff’s original complaint without prejudice and granting Plaintiff forty-five

days to file an amended complaint. See Doc. No. 3. On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

First Amended Complaint alleging various violations of his First and Eighth Amendment

rights and a civil conspiracy cause of action against prison staff at R.J. Donovan Correctional

Facility. See Doc. No. 4. Defendants answered the majority of Plaintiff’s claims, but move

- 1 - 11cv763

Case 3:11-cv-00763-MMA-KSC Document 34 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to dismiss his claim involving an allegedly fabricated X-ray report for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies as to that claim. See Doc. Nos. 17, 18. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b), and Civil Local Rule 72.3(a), United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford has

issued a thoughtful and well-reasoned and Report recommending that Defendants’ motion to

dismiss be granted. See Doc. No. 31. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation, to which Defendants replied. See Doc. Nos. 32, 33. 

Where, as here, a matter has been referred to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended

disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he court shall make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In this case, the

Court has conducted the requisite de novo review and agrees that Defendants’ motion to

dismiss should be granted. 

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim regarding the purportedly fabricated X-ray

occurred in January 2011. Plaintiff filed this action in April 2011. Contrary to Plaintiff’s

objections, neither Rule 15(d) nor Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit his

claim to proceed. Rule 15(d) provides a mechanism for parties to file additional causes of

action based on facts that did not exist when the original complaint was filed. However,

when an amended complaint contains new claims that occurred prior to the filing of the

original complaint, those claims cannot be brought as supplemental pleadings under Rule

15(d). Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858, 874 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Rule 18

does not excuse the exhaustion requirement as to each individual claim against a defendant

because exhaustion is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Thus,

“[w]hile it may be inefficient to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim[] now that [it is] exhausted, §

1997e(a) instructs that the Court must do so. The clear language of § 1997e(a) makes

efficiency considerations irrelevant.” Siguenza v. Cotero, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105192,

11-12 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2012). 

///

- 2 - 11cv763

Case 3:11-cv-00763-MMA-KSC Document 34 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the Report

and Recommendation in its entirety, and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s claim regarding a fabricated X-ray report is dismissed without prejudice due to

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to that claim prior to filing this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv763

Case 3:11-cv-00763-MMA-KSC Document 34 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3