Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00836-3/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

MICHAEL MALDONADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

PADILLA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00836-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

DEFENDANTS JIMINEZ AND CHAVEZ 

FROM THIS ACTION

(Doc. Nos. 18 and 29)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United 

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

17, 2015, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint which is the operative pleading in this 

action. (Doc. No. 11.) On December 8, 2015, defendants Jiminez and Chavez filed a motion to 

dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required. (Doc. No. 18.)

On March 7, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the motion to dismiss brought on behalf of defendants Jiminez and Chavez be 

granted. (Doc. No. 29.) No objections were filed to those findings and recommendations within

the time provided. However, on March 28, 2016, the court received notice of a change of address 

Case 1:15-cv-00836-DAD-MJS Document 35 Filed 07/27/16 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

from plaintiff indicating that he had been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison. (Doc. No. 

30.) In order to ensure that plaintiff received proper notice, the court directed the Clerk of the 

Court to re-serve the March 7, 2016 findings and recommendations on plaintiff at his new address 

of record and provided plaintiff with fourteen days from that re-service to file his written

objections, if any, to the March 7, 2016 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 31.)

On April 18, 2016, plaintiff filed his objections. (Doc. No. 32.) Therein, plaintiff objects 

to the findings and recommendations on the grounds that defendants Jiminez and Chavez were 

clearly named in his inmate grievance which was fully exhausted, that he also named the two 

defendants during interviews, and that he wrote letters to outside sources documenting his 

attempts to include all individuals involved in the incident. (Id. at 2.) 

In the inmate appeal form plaintiff references in his objections, however, plaintiff never 

identified defendant Chavez as an officer who he interacted with on the day in question. Chavez 

is mentioned once through a statement that defendant Padilla made. Plaintiff asserts “[Padilla] 

began telling [plaintiff] that...c/o Chavez told c/o Padilla [that plaintiff] called her a ‘bitch.’” 

(Doc. No. 32, 9.) However, plaintiff did not claim in his inmate grievance that officer Chavez 

had any involvement in the pepper spraying incident at issue, and did not allege that Chavez was 

even present. Furthermore, in the same inmate appeal form, plaintiff did not identify Jimenez as 

using any force against plaintiff or as being present at the time of the pepper spray incident about 

which he complains. Likewise, nothing before the court indicates that prison officials addressed 

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Chavez or Jimenez on the merits. 

See Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[W]hen prison officials address the merits 

of a prisoner’s grievance instead of enforcing a procedural bar, the state’s interests in 

administrative exhaustion have been served.”). Thus, after considering plaintiff’s objections, the 

undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrate 

remedies with respect to his Eighth Amendment claims stemming from the pepper spray incident

against defendants Chavez and Jimenez.

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

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

Case 1:15-cv-00836-DAD-MJS Document 35 Filed 07/27/16 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

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on March 7, 2016 (Doc. No. 29) 

in full; 

2. Defendants Jiminez and Chavez’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18) is granted; and

3. Defendants Jiminez and Chavez are dismissed from this action due to plaintiff’s failure to 

exhaust his administrative remedies as to these defendants prior to filing suit as required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00836-DAD-MJS Document 35 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 3