Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02705/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02705-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GODFREY L. EVANS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2705 DFL KJM P

vs.

M. JIMENEZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 General Order No. 262.

On July 10, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff filed objections

to the findings and recommendations. With his objections, plaintiff presented evidence not

included in his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court has discretion to consider

this evidence. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 935 (9thCir. 2004). The court will consider

plaintiff’s supplemental declaration due to his pro se status and because he appears to have made

a good faith error regarding the scope of the court’s review in the present motion. The

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM Document 26 Filed 09/29/06 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

2

supplemental declaration, if accepted as true, could excuse plaintiff’s failure to exhaust due to

prison official misconduct. Because defendants must prove the absence of exhaustion to raise

their present defense, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), the declaration

may provide grounds for plaintiff to defeat the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the motion will be

denied without prejudice to defendants renewing the motion and responding to plaintiff’s new

claims. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations. The motion to dismiss is

DENIED without prejudice to its renewal.

DATED: 9/29/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02705-JAM -KJM Document 26 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2