Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01298/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01298-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

GLENN RAY KEEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01298-AWI-LJO

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, AND

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS (Docs. 31 and 42)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc.

9) 

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Glenn Ray Keel

(“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants D. Ortiz, Reed, J. Payne, and Bendon (“Defendants”) violated

his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed November 16, 2005. 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed May 5, 2006, was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. On August 18, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which was 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 days. On September 8, 2006, Defendants filed an Objection. 

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 andRecommendationsto be supported bythe record and by proper analysis.

Ordinarily , a plaintiff must exhaust available administrative remedies before commencing a civil

Case 1:05-cv-01298-AWI-GSA Document 52 Filed 01/23/07 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

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Roles

v. Maddox, 439 F.3d 1016, 1017 (9th Cir.2006). Exhaustion is required regarding all suits about

prison life, see Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002), regardless of the type of relief offered

through the administrative process, see Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). However, the

exhaustion requirement is only applicable to a plaintiff who is a prisoner at the time he files suit.

See Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2000). At the time Plaintiff filed this action,

he was not in custody. Thus, as explained by the Magistrate Judge, the exhaustion requirement was

not applicable to him.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 18, 2006, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the

available administrative remedies, filed May 5, 2006, is DENIED; and

3. Defendants Ortiz, Reed, Payne, and Bendon shall file a response to Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01298-AWI-GSA Document 52 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2