Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00525-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0525 LKK KJM P

vs.

LEE ALEXANDER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On August 13, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations and he submits evidence which has not

been presented to the magistrate judge.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The court will adopt the Magistrate

Judge’s findings and recommendations except that defendants’ September 1, 2006 motion to

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 50 Filed 03/06/08 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

2

dismiss will be denied as to plaintiff’s claim that defendant Hubbard denied plaintiff access to

courts on April 1, 2004. See Compl. at 11:15-12:10. In his objections, plaintiff points to

evidence indicating he did exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to this claim

prior to filing suit. See Objections at 12:24-13-3 & Ex 22. With respect to the remainder of

plaintiff’s claims, however, plaintiff either acknowledges that he did not exhaust available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit or fails to point to sufficient evidence indicating that

he did. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 13, 2007 (#45) are adopted in

part and rejected in part as follows;

2. The September 1, 2006 motion to dismiss (#25) filed by defendants Alexander,

Madrigal, Kissinger, Hubbard, McDonald, Peery, Brown, Gunter, Norgaard, Feliciano and Cole

is granted except as to plaintiff’s claim that he was denied access to courts by defendant Hubbard

on April 1, 2004;

3. Defendants Alexander, Madrigal, Kissinger, McDonald, Peery, Brown,

Gunter, Norgaard, Feliciano and Cole are dismissed from this action; and

4. Defendant Hubbard shall file his answer within twenty days. 

DATED: March 5, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 50 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2