Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05282/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05282-5/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

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

W. HENSE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05282-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 64)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS, AND DISMISSING CLAIMS

AGAINST DEFENDANTS COLE,

DAVIS, AND HENSE, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST (Doc. 43)

ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION

TO CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se 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 November 16, 2005, 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

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 68 Filed 01/20/06 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

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

days. On December 15, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. On December 16,

2005, defendants 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

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 16,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies, filed

February 22, 2005, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as

follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

against defendants Cole and Davis for failure to exhaust is

GRANTED;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

against defendant Forgia for failure to exhaust is DENIED; and,

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

against defendant Hense for failure to exhaust is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Cole, Davis, and

Hense are DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust;

4. This action shall continue to proceed on plaintiff’s

third amended complaint against defendant Forgia for retaliation;

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 68 Filed 01/20/06 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

and,

5. This action shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Central District of California where venue

of plaintiff’s remaining claim is proper.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 68 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 3