Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00559-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEZANDER DELGADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER WEEKS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 12-cv-0559 MCE KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 5, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies filed on behalf of defendant Vegas. (ECF No. 34.) 

Defendant Hubbard is the only remaining defendant. On September 13, 2012, service as 

to defendant Hubbard was returned unexecuted on grounds that he was no longer employed at 

High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). (ECF No. 16.) On September 25, 2012, plaintiff was 

granted sixty days to provide further information for service of defendant Hubbard. (ECF No. 

17.) On November 1, 2012, plaintiff filed a letter with the court stating that the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) denied his request for defendant 

Hubbard’s address. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff requested that the court intervene and assist him in 

obtaining defendant Hubbard’s address. (Id.)

Case 2:12-cv-00559-MCE-KJN Document 35 Filed 08/15/13 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

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hubbard and Vegas are the same. Plaintiff alleges 

that defendants forced him to perform oral sex on them on or around June 8, 2011. (ECF No. 1 at 

5.) For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that defendant Hubbard be dismissed 

on grounds that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims against 

this defendant.

On September 25, 2012, defendants filed the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies on defendant Vegas’s behalf. (ECF No. 18.) Defendants demonstrated 

that between June 8, 2011, and March 2, 2012, i.e., the relevant time period, plaintiff submitted 

three non-medical administrative appeals that were accepted for formal review. (ECF No. 18-3 at 

2.) None of those appeals alleged that defendants sexually assaulted plaintiff. (Id., exhibits A, B. 

and C.) 

On June 27, 2013, the undersigned recommended that defendant Vegas’s motion to 

dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 31.) On August 5, 2013, the Honorable Morrison C. England 

adopted the June 27, 2013 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 34.)

The reasons the undersigned recommended granting defendant Vegas’s motion to dismiss 

are equally applicable to the claims against defendant Hubbard. Taking judicial notice of these 

findings and recommendations (ECF No. 31), the undersigned recommends that defendant 

Hubbard be dismissed on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to 

his claims against this defendant. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. 

Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981)) (judicial notice 

may be taken of court records).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Hubbard be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

Case 2:12-cv-00559-MCE-KJN Document 35 Filed 08/15/13 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

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: August 15, 2013

Del559.57

Case 2:12-cv-00559-MCE-KJN Document 35 Filed 08/15/13 Page 3 of 3