Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00470-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENIO LUIS NOGUERAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUGUSTINA OJUKWU,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00470-LJO-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST BE DENIED, 

WITH PREJUDICE, ON THE GROUND 

THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PRISONER 

WHEN HE FILED SUIT

(Doc. 37)

OBJECTION DEADLINE: FIFTEEN DAYS

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Eugenio Luis Nogueras (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 21, 

2012. This action for damages is proceeding against Defendant Ojukwu (“Defendant”) for 

violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Plaintiff’s claim arises from events which occurred at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, 

California.

On August 4, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 

Case 1:14-cv-00470-LJO-SKO Document 38 Filed 09/02/15 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

2

135 S.Ct. 403 (2014). (Doc. 37.) The motion has been submitted on the record without oral 

argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).1 

II. Discussion and Recommendation

Section 1997e(a) of the the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that “[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). A “prisoner” is 

defined as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, 

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions 

of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). Individuals 

who are former prisoners at the time they file suit are not subject to section 1997e(a)’s exhaustion 

requirement. Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2009) (interpreting definition of 

prisoner in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h)); see also Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(civil detainees are not prisoners within the definition of section 1997e)). 

Plaintiff filed this action on August 21, 2012, when he was no longer incarcerated. (Docs. 

1, 3.) As a result, Plaintiff was not required to comply with section 1997e(a)’s exhaustion 

requirement, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust fails as a matter 

of law. Talamantes, 575 F.3d at 1024.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment, filed on August 4, 2015, be DENIED, with prejudice.

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

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

fifteen (15) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Responses, if any, are due 

 

1

Plaintiff was provided with contemporaneous notice of the requirements for opposing a summary judgment motion 

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012); Woods v. Carey, 

684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998). (Doc. 37.)

Case 1:14-cv-00470-LJO-SKO Document 38 Filed 09/02/15 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

3

within ten (10) days from the date the objections are filed. Local Rule 304(d). The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 

appeal. Wilkerson, 772 F.3d at 838-39 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 

1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00470-LJO-SKO Document 38 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 3