Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06128/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06128-11/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

WILLIAM BRADLEY, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. MCVAY, 

Defendant. 

 /

1:04-cv-6128-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 39)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 27)

Plaintiff, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local Rule 72-302.

On February 21, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and a Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendation were to be filed within ten (10) days. On

February 29, 2008, defendants filed objections and on March 3,

2008, plaintiff filed objections.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06128-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 03/07/08 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully accommodation the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that there is a factual

dispute on whether state officials rendered the prison grievance

system unavailable to Plaintiff by not giving him a wheelchair or

cane so that he could attend mandatary appeals related

investigations. In the objections, Defendant contends that

Plaintiff has not provided support for his assertion. While

minimal, Plaintiff has provided evidence he needed assistance to

walk, and Plaintiff was denied any such accommodation. As such,

it becomes a factual dispute as to why Plaintiff did not attend

the investigation meetings and whether he made prison staff aware

that he needed accommodations. Thus, Defendant’s motion must be

denied. 

Respondent correctly notes in the objections that an

evidentiary hearing, as part of an unenumerated Rule 12(b)

motion, is a proper why to resolve this factual dispute. See

Ritza v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union,

837 F.2d 365, 369 (9 Cir 1988) (recognizing general view finds th

there is no right of jury trial on matter in abatement and that

court has broad discretion as to method used to resolve factual

disputes). While the court is willing to conduct an evidentiary

hearing, Defendant has requested such a hearing at an improper

stage of the proceedings. New arguments are not properly raised

for the first time in objections to Findings and Recommendations. 

Case 1:04-cv-06128-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 03/07/08 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 Any such motion and hearing should be set before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. 1

3

Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9 Cir. th

1988), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty,

977 F.2d 1347 (9 Cir. 1992). As such, the court will not order th

an evidentiary hearing at this time. However, the court will

grant Defendant permission to file a second unenumerated Rule

12(b) motion in which they can request an evidentiary hearing. 

In their moving papers for such a motion and any opposition, the

parties should state the witnesses they desire to call at any

hearing and a time estimation for such a hearing.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 21,

2008, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust,

filed January 5, 2007 is DENIED; and

3. Defendant is GRANTED leave to file a second

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion within forty-five days

of the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06128-AWI-DLB Document 42 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 3