Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01309/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01309-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD LEE MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORES, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 1:17-cv-01309-DAD-SAB (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. No. 36)

Plaintiff Gerald Lee Miller is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 13, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 28, 

32) be denied as moot and that defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 29) be

granted in part. (Doc. No. 36.) Specifically, the findings and recommendations recommended 

that defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants on the 

issue of whether plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, and be denied 

Case 1:17-cv-01309-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/13/20 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

as moot with respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendants Flores, Marquez, and 

Xayoudom. (Id. at 12.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days after service. (Id.

at 12-13.) On December 30, 2019, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 37.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

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

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 

by the record and proper analysis.

In his objections, plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge is biased against him because 

he did not consent to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also contends that 

defendants waived the exhaustion of administrative remedies issue because they did not “comply 

with this court[’s] discovery and scheduling order.” (Id. at 5.) The court does not find plaintiff’s 

conclusory objection that the assigned magistrate judge is somehow biased against him to be in 

any way persuasive. Moreover, defendants raised the issue of plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies in their answer and did not waive it. (See Doc. No. 25 at 3.) Finally, 

plaintiff’s objections do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s finding that the 

undisputed evidence before the court on summary judgment establishes that plaintiff commenced 

this suit prior to exhausting the administrative remedies that were available to him. (See Doc. No. 

36 at 8–11); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] prisoner 

must exhaust his administrative remedies for the claims contained within his complaint before 

that complaint is tendered to the district court.”).

Accordingly, 

1. The December 13, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 36) are adopted 

in full;

2. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 29) is granted in part 

and denied as moot in part as follows:

/////

/////

Case 1:17-cv-01309-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/13/20 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

a. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants on the issue of 

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to 

filing suit;

b. Summary judgment is denied in all other respects;

3. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 28, 32) are denied as moot;

4. This case is dismissed without prejudice; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01309-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 3