Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02266/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02266-2/pdf.json

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

WILLIAM GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv2266-LAB (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

AMY MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

State prisoner William Garcia brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against several prison employees. (Docket no. 34 at 1.) He submitted his claim through the

administrative grievance process, but filed this lawsuit before the process finished. (Id. at

3.) Defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing that Garcia failed to exhaust

administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). (Docket no. 25.) Magistrate Judge Skomal issued a Report and

Recommendation (R&R), urging that Defendants' motion be granted (Docket no. 34.) Garcia

objected to the R&R, admitting he "made an inadvertent mistake" by filing early, but arguing

that he will suffer harm if he is forced to file a new lawsuit. (Docket 39 at 1–3.)

A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge's R&R on dispositive

matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the

magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Id. "A judge of the court

- 1 - 14cv2266

Case 3:14-cv-02266-LAB-BGS Document 42 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by

the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories

and admission on file, together with the affidavits, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue

as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the moving party shows that there is an absence of evidence to

support the non-moving party's claims, the burden shifts to the non-moving party resisting

the motion to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). 

The Court construes Garcia's pleadings liberally. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court is not, however, required to "comb the record

to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment," simply because the plaintiff

is proceeding pro se. Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

The PLRA contains a strict requirement that prisoners must exhaust administrative

remedies before challenging prison conditions in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "Once

within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now

mandatory." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Garcia admits he didn't exhaust

his administrative remedies, so the Court can’t allow him to proceed with this lawsuit. The

Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 25)

is GRANTED. Garcia’s motion for preliminary judgement (Docket no. 32) is DENIED as

moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN Burns

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv2266

Case 3:14-cv-02266-LAB-BGS Document 42 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 2