Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00126/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00126-8/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

HARVEY CURTIS BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

ECF NO. 41, 42

Plaintiff Harvey Curtis Baker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceedings pro se in this 

civil rights action against Defendant James A. Yates (“Defendant”). On March 19, 2012, 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) On February 6, 2013, the magistrate judge 

issued an Amended1Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss be denied. (ECF No. 42.)

The Amended Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained 

notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Neither party has filed 

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

/ / /

 

1

The magistrate judge issued an Amended Findings and Recommendations on February 6, 2013 because the original 

Findings and Recommendations issued on February 5, 2013 (ECF No. 41) inadvertently omitted instructions 

regarding the filing of objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The Amended Findings and 

Recommendations are otherwise identical to the original.

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 47 Filed 03/05/13 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 

Amended Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. In 

this case, Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies was excused because prison 

officials mistakenly informed Plaintiff that he was attempting to appeal a non-appealable issue. 

The other grounds raised in Defendant’s motion to dismiss cannot be properly adjudicated at this 

time due to confusion regarding the operative pleading in this action. Accordingly, Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a claim and failure to comply with the 

California Tort Claims Act will be denied without prejudice to Defendant’s right to reassert those 

defenses after Plaintiff re-files his complaint in this matter.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations and Amended Findings and 

Recommendations dated February 5, 2013 and February 6, 2013 are ADOPTED 

IN FULL (ECF Nos. 41, 42);

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies is DENIED;

3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a claim and failure 

to comply with the California Tort Claims Act is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE;

4. Plaintiff is ORDERED to re-file his complaint. In the alternative, Plaintiff is 

granted leave to file an amended complaint to address any deficiencies identified 

in Defendant’s motion to dismiss which can be cured via amendment. Plaintiff is 

ordered to file his complaint or amended complaint within thirty (30) days.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 47 Filed 03/05/13 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

 Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to file within thirty (30) days may result in the 

imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

66h44d

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 47 Filed 03/05/13 Page 3 of 3