Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00511/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00511-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE J. NEWTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

OFFICER S. EATMON,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 19cv511-LAB (KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. 40]

On December 6, 2019, this Court adopted Judge Crawford’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) and granted Defendant S. Eatmon’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, finding that Plaintiff Theodore Newton, a state prison inmate proceeding pro se,

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing this suit. Dkt. 34. Newton 

now moves for reconsideration of that order under Rule 60(b), arguing that the Court failed 

to docket (and therefore consider) a Supplemental Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment that Newton mailed on November 8, 2019. That Supplemental

Opposition attached a letter from the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) denying Newton’s third level of appeal. Because the third level of 

appeal is the final level for an inmate grievance, he argues that (1) he did in fact exhaust his 

administrative remedies, and (2) the Court would not have adopted the R&R if it had 

considered this document. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00511-LAB-KSC Document 41 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
- 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

Newton is incorrect. Although it’s true that Newton’s Supplemental Opposition does 

not appear on the docket,

1 Newton attached the CDCR’s “Third Level Appeal Decision” letter 

to his Objection to Judge Crawford’s R&R, and the Court specifically considered that 

document when it adopted the R&R. See Order Adopting Report and Recommendation, 

Dkt. 34, at 1 (“The Court has reviewed Judge Crawford’s R&R, Newton’s objections, and 

Officer Eatmon’s reply.”) (emphasis added). The CDCR’s decision letter is irrelevant to the 

Court’s ruling because, as explained previously, “the law is clear that a prison inmate like 

Newton may not bring a Section 1983 claim in federal court until he has exhausted all 

administrative remedies available to him.” See id. (citing 42 U.S.C. §1997(e)); see also 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 1997e(a) requires 

exhaustion before the filing of a complaint and that a prisoner does not comply with this 

requirement by exhausting available remedies during the course of the litigation.”). The 

question is therefore not whether Newton has currently exhausted his administrative 

remedies, but rather whether he exhausted his administrative remedies before bringing suit. 

The record is clear that he did not, so there is no basis to reconsider the Court’s previous 

orders. Newton’s Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 60(b) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2020

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

 

1 Newton says this may be because he placed the Supplemental Opposition in an envelope 

with a Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel, which led to the Opposition being 

overlooked. See Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. 40, at 1. In any event, it’s true that his 

Supplemental Opposition is not found on the docket. 

Case 3:19-cv-00511-LAB-KSC Document 41 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2