Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05313/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05313-22/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MTA HAGGIE, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-02-5313 OWW/DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 146);

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS (Doc. 122) AND

DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

On August 1, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that Plaintiff's action be dismissed for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). 

Plaintiff timely filed objections to the recommendation and

an attachment to the objections.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

73-305, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Based on this de novo review, the Court concurs with the

findings and recommendation that the action be dismissed for

Case 1:02-cv-05313-OWW -DLB Document 149 Filed 09/27/07 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

2

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Plaintiff’s assertions that delay by prison officials in

processing his grievances until he was paroled excuse the

required exhaustion is unavailing under the circumstances of this

case because after Plaintiff was located and provided with the

first level denial of his grievance, Plaintiff did not complete

the grievance process but filed this litigation. Plaintiff’s

references to a report by the Office of the Inspector General

criticizing the third level responses by prison authorities does

not establish that Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies is excused because Plaintiff did not proceed to the

third level. Furthermore, there is no authority that delay per

se excuses the exhaustion requirement. Plaintiff’s argument that

he ceased being a prisoner for purposes of Section 1997e(a) when

he was released on parole and, therefore, was no longer subject

to the exhaustion requirement, is without merit because Plaintiff

parole status was revoked and Plaintiff returned to the custody

of the CDRC before he filed this action and was in the custody of

the CDRC at the time he filed this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 1, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.

///

///

Case 1:02-cv-05313-OWW -DLB Document 149 Filed 09/27/07 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05313-OWW -DLB Document 149 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3