Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01044/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01044-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT J. MCCULLOCK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-1044-AWI-TAG-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

(Document #20)

Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 10, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and

Recommendation that recommended the court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismiss

the petition.. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within twenty (20) days of the date of service of the order. 

On August 27, 2007, Petitioner filed objections.

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 and having

considered the objections, the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner’s primary argument

in the objections is that he is not required to exhaust his administrative remedies and state

remedies because prison officials denied his administrative appeals as untimely. Petitioner cites

to Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9 Cir. 2005). While Ngo concerned administrative th

exhaustion in the context of prisoner civil rights cases, the court agrees with Petitioner that Ngo

Case 1:05-cv-01044-AWI-TAG Document 29 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 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 2

offers analogous reasoning to this action because both Ngo and this action concern what is

sufficient exhaustion of prison administrative remedies. 

The problem for Petitioner is that Ngo was overturned by the Supreme Court in

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006). In that case, the Supreme Court held that “[p]roper

exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules

because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure

on the course of its proceedings.” Id. at 2386. The Supreme Court found that "[proper

exhaustion] means ... a prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance

with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in

federal court." Id. The Supreme Court reasoned that the:

benefits of exhaustion can be realized only if the prison grievance

system is given a fair opportunity to consider the grievance. The

prison grievance system will not have such an opportunity unless

the grievant complies with the system's critical procedural rules. A

prisoner who does not want to participate in the prison grievance

system will have little incentive to comply with the system's

procedural rules unless noncompliance carries a sanction, and

under respondent's interpretation of the PLRA noncompliance

carries no significant sanction.

Ngo, 126 S.Ct. at 2388. Based on this Supreme Court precedent, the court must find that

Petitioner did not complete the prison administrative review process. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on August 10, 2007 are ADOPTED

in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01044-AWI-TAG Document 29 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 2