Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00108-12/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

LENT N. KING, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

G. TRACY, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

1:06-cv-00108-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,

AND DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

(Docs. 21 and 25)

Plaintiff Lent N. King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 25, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be

granted and the complaint be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Case 1:06-cv-00108-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 07/30/07 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

27

28

2

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On June 22,

2007, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 provides that “[n]o action shall be brought

with respect to prison conditions under [42 USC § 1983], or any

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or

other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as

are available are exhausted.” 42 USC § 1997e(a). Here,

Defendant’s motion contends Plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies. Plaintiff maintains in his objections,

as he did in his opposition to Defendant’s motion, that he filed

an administrative appeal that was not responded to. In the

Findings and Recommendations, the Magistrate Judge found that

while the failure to respond to a properly field grievance may

result in a finding that exhaustion occurred, Plaintiff had not

submitted any evidence demonstrating that he properly filed an

appeal that complied with all applicable procedural rules.

In the objections, Plaintiff now states that on November 13,

2003, Plaintiff timely filed an inmate complaint (602) against

Defendants and did not receive a response within the required

time frame. While this statement asserts a timely appeal, it

does not state that the appeal was filed pursuant to applicable

Case 1:06-cv-00108-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 07/30/07 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

27

28

3

procedural rules. Regardless, this statement is merely an

assertion in Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff has still not

provided evidence, such as his own declaration, of this fact. A

document must be verified to constitute an affidavit. See Moran

v. Selig, 447 F.3d 948, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2006). Here,

Plaintiff’s objections are not submitted as setting forth true

facts under penalty of perjury. Thus, Plaintiff has not

submitted evidence to show that he properly filed his

administrative appeal. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 25, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed March 5, 2007, is 

GRANTED; and,

3. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00108-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 3