Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01461-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW W. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED

(ECF No. 24)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Andrew W. Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed September 6, 2012, against Defendants A. Flores and E. 

Borges for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Smith, 

Krpan, and Cope for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. ECF No. 10. Pending before the Court is Defendant Borges’ and Defendant Cope’s

Motion to Dismiss, filed June 17, 2013, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Rule 12(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

1

ECF 

No. 24. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on July 19, 2013. ECF No. 33. On July 29, 2013, Defendants 

 

1 Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was served with a concurrent 

notice pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), as required by the recent holding in Woods v. Carey, 

684 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 2012).

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 1 of 11
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

2

filed a Reply. ECF No. 36. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff was incarcerated at Sierra Conservation Center (“SCC”) in Jamestown, California, 

where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: Warden F. 

Chavez; correctional sergeant M. Murphy; correctional officers A. Flores, W. Gregg, and E. Borges; 

medical doctor S. Smith; osteopathic physician and surgeon J. Krpan; registered nurse M. Cope; and 

Does 1 through 25.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff was attacked by another inmate 

and sustained serious injuries. Plaintiff is a male to female transgender inmate.2 Defendant Chavez 

implemented “Rolling Blackouts” at SCC during this time. Rolling Blackouts place a facility on 

lockdown/modified program. During Rolling Blackouts, responder staff, correctional officers who 

are trained to respond to emergency situations, are redirected to the other facilities. Responder staff 

are posted at strategic positions during inmate movement and act as a deterrent to prevent assaults. 

On January 4, 2011, responder staff were not present at Plaintiff’s facility.

At 6:40 p.m., during evening chow, Plaintiff was attacked by inmate Rodriguez. When 

Plaintiff hit the ground, Plaintiff was semiconscious, unconscious, or in a dazed, confused state. 

Inmate Rodriguez attacked Plaintiff repeatedly in the facial area, with strikes landing on Plaintiff’s 

eyes and right ear area. Defendant Murphy noticed two inmates on the ground and announced the 

alarm over the institutional radio system.

Defendant Murphy witnessed Defendant A. Flores utilizing his M. K. 9 pepper spray into the 

facial area of Plaintiff. Defendant Flores wrote and signed a false report, stating that both inmates 

were striking each other in the upper torso and facial areas. Plaintiff was at first misclassified for 

administrative segregation (“ad-seg”) status.

 

2 The Court will use the feminine pronoun when referring to Plaintiff, as Plaintiff previously requested. ECF 

No. 17. 

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 2 of 11
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

3

Plaintiff had sustained injury to the right ear and was unable to hear from that ear properly. 

Defendant Gregg was assigned to the facility medical unit that night. Per Defendant Murphy’s 

orders, Defendant Gregg was to decontaminate Plaintiff from the effects of the pepper spray. 

Defendant Gregg ordered Plaintiff to remove her clothing. Plaintiff had difficulty hearing Defendant 

Gregg’s verbal orders because of the injury to Plaintiff’s right ear area. Defendant Gregg ordered 

Plaintiff to wash the blood from her wounds prior to being seen by licensed vocational nurse 

Maldando. However, Plaintiff was unaware that she was supposed to decontaminate in the bathroom 

sink. Plaintiff’s injuries were active bleeding, bruised/discolored area, cut/laceration/slash, and 

swollen areas. Plaintiff had observed prior inmates decontaminated by garden hose to wash an 

inmate’s hair, arms, and legs. Plaintiff was not told to attempt to wash the pepper spray from her 

hair. Plaintiff suffered from the effects of the pepper spray through the night, and had transferred the 

pepper spray to her eyes and genitalia. Plaintiff was never properly decontaminated by Defendant 

Gregg.

Nurse Maldando referred Plaintiff to the SCC Main Medical Facility for further treatment. 

Defendant Borges took command of the transport, and immediately disliked Plaintiff. Defendant 

Borges manhandled Plaintiff “like a rag-doll.” Defendant Borges used derogatory remarks 

concerning Plaintiff’s sexual orientation while simultaneously yanking and pulling Plaintiff in an 

unprofessional manner. Plaintiff repeatedly told Defendant Borges that she was having trouble 

hearing Defendant Borges’s verbal commands. Plaintiff was at all times in handcuffs and other 

mechanical restraints as Defendant Borges dragged and yanked him, and verbally abused him.

After receiving dental x-rays, Defendant Borges escorted Plaintiff to the ad-seg area of the prison 

infirmary. Plaintiff experienced severe burning of the eyes and genitalia because Plaintiff had

transferred pepper spray by her hands and had not been properly decontaminated. On January 5, 

2011, Plaintiff was finally allowed to wash off the effects of the pepper spray in the infirmary 

shower with soap and water, and provided clean clothing.

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 3 of 11
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

4

On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by the oral surgeon, who reviewed the x-rays and 

concluded that Plaintiff had a cracked cheek bone. Plaintiff was also seen by Defendant Smith, who 

treated Plaintiff with eye drops. Plaintiff had complained of lower back pain the tailbone area, loss 

of balance, and blurred, diminished vision in the right eye. Plaintiff was released from the infirmary 

and returned to ad-seg.

On January 10, 2011, the captain reviewed the lockup order for Plaintiff and released 

Plaintiff back to general population. Plaintiff remained in ad-seg until January 16, 2011. On 

January 12, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Krpan in the ad-seg medical unit. Plaintiff again 

complained of lower back pain the tailbone area, loss of balance, and blurred, diminished vision in 

the right eye. Defendant Krpan wrote a false report that the dizziness and visual difficulties had 

resolved.

On January 7, 2011, when Plaintiff entered ad-seg, all of Plaintiff’s Keep On Person 

(“KOP”) medication were taken, pursuant to a policy implemented by Defendant Chavez. On 

January 16, 2011, upon release from ad-seg, Plaintiff contacted Defendant nurse M. Cope regarding 

the confiscated KOP medication. Defendant Cope assured that Plaintiff’s KOP medication would be 

returned. On January 20, 2011, after not receiving her medication, Plaintiff submitted a sick call 

slip, and was again seen by Defendant Cope. Plaintiff informed Defendant Cope that she had still 

not received the KOP medication. Plaintiff had medication for heartburn, migraine headaches, 

psoriasis, pain, eye drops, and a thyroid condition. Without the thyroid medication, Plaintiff suffers 

from shakes or quivers, lack of sleep, odd, funny feelings, uncontrolled hunger pangs, and chipping 

of fingernails. Plaintiff informed Defendant Cope of her injuries. Defendant Cope assured Plaintiff 

that she would order the medication right away.

On January 25, 2011, Plaintiff had not received her medication. Plaintiff was examined by 

nurse Heather, who scheduled Plaintiff to see her primary care physician the next day. Nurse 

Heather also ordered Plaintiff’s thyroid medication, which she received on January 27, 2011.

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 4 of 11
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

5

Doctor Thomatos, Plaintiff’s primary care physician, examined Plaintiff, prescribed a medical donut, 

and lower bunk, lower tier chrono, and ordered a x-ray for Plaintiff’s coccyx (tailbone). Doctor 

Thomatos also referred Plaintiff to see an outside eye clinic. The eye doctor could not determine 

whether Plaintiff had suffered permanent injury to her right eye. The eye doctor prescribed 

corrective lenses.

In early February of 2011, Plaintiff submitted another sick call slip, complaining that while 

housed in the prison infirmary, or the ad-seg unit, she had developed a pain rash and small sores all 

over her arms and legs. Defendant Cope denied Plaintiff access to see the physician, stating that 

Plaintiff always had something wrong with her skin. Defendant Cope did not look at Plaintiff’s 

small sores.

On March 1, 2011, the sores and rash became worse, and Plaintiff submitted another sick call 

slip. Plaintiff was again seen by Defendant Cope, who looked at the rash and sores and exclaimed 

that Plaintiff had staphylococcus. Plaintiff was finally seen by Dr. Thomatos on March 7, 2011, who 

started Plaintiff on a strong antibiotic treatment.

Plaintiff alleges a violation of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Plaintiff requests as relief declaratory judgment, and monetary damages.3

III. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with 

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner 

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. 

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Exhaustion is required regardless of 

 

3

Plaintiff also requested injunctive relief. Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, 

California, and has not demonstrated the likelihood of return to SCC. Accordingly, this request was dismissed as moot. 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007).

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 5 of 11
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

6

the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 

532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to 

prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

The PLRA does not require that Plaintiff include legal theories or every fact necessary to

prove each element of an eventual legal claim. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.

2009). But an inmate appeal must provide enough information to allow prison officials to take

appropriate responsive measures. Id. at 1121. This ensures a grievance serves its primary

purpose of notifying the prison of a problem. See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (5th Cir. 

2004). 

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative 

defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. 

Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. The failure to exhaust nonjudicial administrative 

remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, rather than a 

summary judgment motion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & 

Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)). In deciding a motion to 

dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look beyond the pleadings and 

decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. If the Court concludes that the prisoner has failed to 

exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id.

B. Analysis

The CDCR has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs. 

tit. 15, § 3084.1 (2010). At the time of the events in question, the process was initiated by 

submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal were involved, including the 

informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the 

“Director’s Level.” Id. § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of the 

event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, 

or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id. §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). In order to satisfy § 

1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to 

filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 6 of 11
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

7

Exhaustion does not always require pursuit of an appeal through the Director’s Level of Review. 

What is required to satisfy exhaustion is a fact specific inquiry, and may be dependent upon prison 

officials’ response to the appeal. See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (improper 

reasons for screening inmate’s appeal is equitable exception to exhaustion); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 

F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing examples of exceptions to exhaustion requirement from 

other circuits); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[E]ntirely pointless 

exhaustion” not required).

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies against 

Defendants Borges and Cope in this action. Defendants contend that although Plaintiff submitted 

various appeals that were exhausted, the appeals did not concern Defendant Borges’ or Defendant 

Cope’s alleged misconduct. Defendant submits, as exhibits in support, declarations from M. 

Baldwin, Appeals Coordinator for CDCR at SCC, J. Lozano, Chief of the Office of Appeals for 

CDCR in Sacramento, California, S. Stewart, Healthcare Appeals Coordinator at SCC, and L. 

Zamora, Chief Inmate Correspondence and Appeals Branch in Elk Grove, California. Baldwin’s 

declaration indicates that Plaintiff did not file any appeal as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant 

Borges physically manhandled Plaintiff during medical transport on or around January 4, 2011. 

Baldwin Decl. ¶ 10. Lozano’s declaration indicates that Plaintiff did not file any inmate appeal for 

review at the third level concerning Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Borges or anyone 

“manhandling” Plaintiff “like a ragdoll.” Lozano Decl. ¶ 8. Stewart’s and Zamora’s declarations 

indicate that Plaintiff never filed an appeal regarding Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Cope. 

Plaintiff did file appeal No. SCC-20-11-10103, concerning Plaintiff’s medical issues from January 4, 

2011 to January 27, 2011. However, Plaintiff never submitted any appeals regarding a complaint for 

Defendant Cope’s failure to treat a rash in February 2011. Steward Decl. ¶ ¶ 5-6; Zamora Decl. ¶ ¶ 

7-8. There is no record of an inmate grievance properly filed regarding Defendants Borges and 

Cope’s alleged acts while Plaintiff was incarcerated at SCC. Defendants have met their initial 

burden of persuasion. Thus, the burden thus shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate exhaustion of all 

available administrative remedies.

///

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 7 of 11
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

8

1. Defendant Borges

Plaintiff contends that her exhausted appeals did include the same allegations against 

Defendant Borges as her current complaint before the Court. Although Plaintiff was unable to 

specifically identify Defendant Borges by name at the time of the initial appeal, Plaintiff described 

him to the best of her ability. Pl’s Opp. at 2; ECF No. 33. Plaintiff submits appeal No. SCC-11-

10103, which states: “On 1/4/11, appellant [Plaintiff] received dental x-rays. He was escorted by 

custody staff Eason (male black) and big white guy with a name beginning ‘B’. Appellant 

complained she couldn’t hear, head was ringing.” Pl’s Exh. A; ECF No. 33 at 11. Additionally,

Plaintiff submits appeal No. SCC-11-00109, which states: “Due to the Ad-Seg placement appellant 

[Plaintiff] was treated by custody staff like a common thug, being handcuffed behind his [her] back, 

during medical treatments such as X-rays, dental treatment, and the like.” Pl’s Exh. B; ECF No. 33 

at 16. Plaintiff contends that both these appeals describe the alleged actions of Defendant Borges in 

this action, and thus satisfies the exhaustion requirement. 

Here, the issue is whether Plaintiff provided enough information in her appeals to allow 

prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures against Defendant Borges. See Griffin, 557 

F.3d at 1121. Plaintiff was not required in her appeal to identify responsible parties or otherwise 

signal who may ultimately be sued. Sapp, 623 F.3d at 824. The relevant prison regulation only 

required Plaintiff to describe the problem, which, with respect to her excessive force claim, was that 

Defendant Borges manhandled Plaintiff during a medical transport. See Sapp, 623 F.3d at 824 

(citing Griffin, 557 F.3d at 1120) (quotation marks omitted); Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1211; cf. McCollum 

v. Cal. Dept of Corr. & Rehab., 647 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2011) (while inmates grievances 

provided notice the failure to provide for certain general Wiccan religious needs and free exercise, 

they were not sufficient to place prison on notice that the chaplaincy-hiring program itself was the 

problem); Morton, 599 F.3d at 946 (appeal grieving prisons decision to deny visitation with minors

did not place prison on notice of the plaintiffs claim that staff conduct contributed to a prior assault 

on him by inmates). 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that while being transported to the Main Medical Facility, 

Defendant Borges met the transportation vehicle at the Main Facility side-door. ECF No. 10 at 17.

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 8 of 11
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

9

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Borges instantly took a disliking to Plaintiff, used derogatory 

remarks concerning Plaintiff’s sexual orientation while yanking and pulling Plaintiff around in an 

unprofessional manner. ECF No. 10, at 4, 17. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was in mechanical 

restraints including handcuffs and possibly still had waist-chains on. ECF No. 10, at 4. Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendant Borges physically manhandled Plaintiff like a ragdoll while Plaintiff was 

shackled in handcuffs. ECF No. 10 at 4.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeals did not provide sufficient information to notify the 

prison of the alleged complaints against Defendants Borges. The Court’s findings focus on the lack 

of factual similarities between Plaintiff’s appeals and the allegations against Defendant Borges in the 

current action.4In regards to Plaintiff’s appeal No. SCC-20-11-10103, Plaintiff identified Defendant 

Borges by her description “big white guy with a name beginning with B” and by reference to “the 

medical officer at the prison infirmary on the night of alleged incident,” but Plaintiff does not tie this 

individual to or in any way raise similar facts surrounding her allegation that Defendant Borges 

manhandled Plaintiff. Thus, appeal SCC-20-11-10103 could not have put prison officials on notice 

of the issue Plaintiff now alleges against Defendant Borges in her complaint. Next, in regards to 

Plaintiff’s appeal No. SCC-X-11-001019, the language “appellant was treated by custody staff like a 

common thug, being handcuffed behind his [her] back during medical treatments such as x-rays, 

dental treatment...” does not describe the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative appeals against Defendant Borges and 

will recommend that he be dismissed from this action. 

2. Defendant Cope

Plaintiff contends that her exhausted appeals included the same allegations against Defendant

Cope as in the current complaint before the Court.. Plaintiff did not specifically name Defendant 

Cope in her appeals because in January of 2011, Defendant Cope had the last name Miles. Plaintiff 

contends that M. Miles was listed in appeal No. SCC-20-11-10103 five different times. Pl’s Opp. at 

4; ECF No. 33. Plaintiff submits appeal No. SCC-11-10103, which shows that Plaintiff complained 

 

4 The fact that Plaintiff was not able to identify Defendant Borges specifically by name in the appeals is not 

determinative in this case. Plaintiff’s descriptions of a big white guy with a name stating “B” would have been sufficient 

had Plaintiff raised similar facts surrounding his allegations in the current complaint. 

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 9 of 11
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

10

of “numerous abrasions, scratches, bruises, discolored areas, cuts, lacerations” that eventually led to 

her staph infection. Pl’s Exh. A; ECF No. 33 at 9. Plaintiff argues that these injuries eventually led 

to her rash and staph infection, which Defendant Cope failed to treat her for. Pl’s Opp. at 4-5. 

Plaintiff’s appeal also shows that she complained of M. Miles’ failure to provide Plaintiff with is 

KOP medication on January 20, 2011. 

Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Cope is proceeding only for 

Defendant Cope’s failure to treat Plaintiff’s skin rash.5 ECF No. 13 at 11. Plaintiff’s complaint 

alleges that Plaintiff alleges that she informed Defendant Cope of a painful rash in early February 

2011. ECF No. 10 at 61. Defendant Cope denied access to see a primary care physician, stating 

that there was always something wrong with Plaintiff’s skin. Id. On March 1, 2011, when the rash 

worsened, Plaintiff again was examined by Defendant Cope, who exclaimed that Plaintiff had 

staphylococcus. Id. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust her appeals regarding the allegations of 

Defendant Cope’s failure to treat Plaintiff’s skin rash. Plaintiff correctly notes that Defendant Cope 

(formerly M. Miles) was mentioned various times in appeal No. SCC-20-11-10103, however, at no 

point did Plaintiff’s appeal complain of Defendant Cope’s failure to treat a skin rash. Plaintiff’s 

appeal complains of Defendant Cope’s failure to provide Plaintiff with her KOP medication from 

about January 16, 2011 to January 25, 2011. However, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges failure to treat 

Plaintiff’s rash in early February of 2011. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust 

her administrative appeals against Defendant Cope and will recommend that she be dismissed from 

this action. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Defendants have demonstrated that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust available administrative 

remedies against Defendants Borges and Cope as required by the PLRA. Accordingly, the 

undersigned recommends dismissal of Defendants Borges and Cope form this action, without 

prejudice. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

///

 

5 The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Cope for failure to provide Plaintiff with her KOP 

medication. ECF No. 13 at 11.

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 10 of 11
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

11

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed June 17, 2013, pursuant to the unenumerated 

portion of Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, should be granted; and

2. Defendants Borges and Cope be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, for 

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 49 Filed 12/17/13 Page 11 of 11