Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05107/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05107-7/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

DERRICK LEE BILLUPS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. HOWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05107-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 50)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 39)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Derrick Lee Billups (“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 December 19, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On January 30, 2008, plaintiff filed objections 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

Case 1:04-cv-05107-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 02/26/08 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

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the

objections, Plaintiff contends that prison officials obstructed

his access to the grievance system. Plaintiff appears to take

the position that exhaustion should be excused because prison

officials improperly screened out his appeal. The evidence

provided by Plaintiff reveals that he filed appeals about

inadequate medical care in October 2003. These appeals were

resolved in February 2004. Based on this evidence, the Court

declines to excuse exhaustion. Plaintiff filed this action on

January 20, 2004. Unfortunately, exhaustion must occur prior to

filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th

Cir. 2002). Thus, this court has no choice but to dismiss the

complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 19,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed May

3, 2007, is GRANTED; 

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

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available

administrative remedies;

4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot;

5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05107-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 2