Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06324/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06324-2/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

ALVIN RONNELL ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICKIE McCOY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:99-CV-6324-REC-LJO-P

ORDER DISREGARDING SECOND

SUPPLEMENT TO OPPOSITION

(Doc. 113)

Plaintiff Alvin Ronnell Ross (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 29, 2005, the court issued

an order allowing plaintiff to supplement his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff

filed a supplement on July 14, 2005, and defendants filed a reply on July 19, 2005. Pursuant to Local

Rule 78-230(m), defendants’ motion to dismiss was deemed submitted on July 19, 2005, upon the

filing of the reply, and the court issued a Findings and Recommendations addressing the motion on

July 22, 2005.

On July 26, 2005, plaintiff filed a second supplement to his opposition. In light of the facts

that plaintiff previously availed himself of the opportunity to supplement his opposition, the motion

was subsequently deemed submitted, and the court issued Findings and Recommendations, the court

will not consider plaintiff’s second opposition. Any further argument plaintiff wishes Judge Coyle

Case 1:99-cv-06324-REC-LJO Document 115 Filed 07/29/05 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

 Even if the court was to consider plaintiff’s second supplement, the argument set forth therein does not 1

alter the Findings and Recommendations. The holding in Rumbles v. Hill cited to by plaintiff is no longer good law. 

Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding, in part, exhaustion not required where prisoner

seeking money damages and administrative process does not provide money damages). Pursuant to the United States

Supreme Court’s decision in Booth v. Churner, which overruled Rumbles in part, prisoners must complete the

prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by

the process, as long as the administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

2

to consider must be set forth in an objection to the Findings and Recommendations. 

1

Accordingly, plaintiff’s second supplement to his opposition to defendants’ motion to

dismiss, filed July 26, 2005, is HEREBY DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06324-REC-LJO Document 115 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 2