Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01405/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01405-2/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 - 07cv1405

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNESTO CHAVEZ, 

CDCR #P06885,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1405-LAB (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

vs.

JASON HANSSON, M.D., LEO

SALDIVAR, M.D., CRAIG KAISER, M.D.;

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging he had been denied

necessary psychiatric care. Defendant C. Kaiser, a staff psychiatrist at R. J. Donovan State

Prison (“Donovan”) where Plaintiff is being held, filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff also

named two other Defendants, although he has never served them nor have they appeared.

The motion to dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo for

a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule

72.3(a). On March 14, 2008, Judge Bencivengo issued her report and recommendation (the

“R&R”), finding Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies and recommending

dismissal without prejudice on that basis.

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01405-LAB-CAB Document 15 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), the opposition should have been filed no later than

14 calendar days before the hearing date on the motion to dismiss, which was March 14. 

2

 Although it is unclear when Plaintiff delivered his opposition to prison authorities for

mailing, it is dated March 11. Plaintiff’s opposition and the R&R crossed in the mail.

Plaintiff’s opposition was mailed before the R&R was issued, and it was received in the

Clerk’s office on March 13. On March 14 the Clerk’s office forwarded it to chambers, and

the opposition was accepted for filing by discrepancy order signed March 18, 2008. In effect,

Plaintiff’s opposition and the R&R crossed in the mail. 

- 2 - 07cv1405

I. Legal Standards

The district court has jurisdiction to review the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation concerning a dispositive pretrial motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district

judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record,

or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which

specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule.” Id.; see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

II. Discussion

Plaintiff filed no timely opposition to the motion to dismiss.1 On March 20, 2008,

however, his opposition was accepted for filing nunc pro tunc to March 13, 2008.2 The

opposition is significantly late without explanation or excuse, and no motion to extend the

time for filing the opposition was filed. Although the Court construes the pleadings liberally,

“[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King

v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff has filed no objection to the R&R. The

Court therefore construes his late-filed opposition as his objections to the R&R.

A. Dismissal of Unserved Defendants

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this case on August 1, 2007. Summonses as to

Defendants Saldivar and Hansson were returned unexecuted on January 2, 2008, and

Plaintiff has made no subsequent attempt to serve these Defendants. 

Case 3:07-cv-01405-LAB-CAB Document 15 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 4
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 - 07cv1405

The R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice of claims against these

Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to timely serve them with process. This

recommendation provided Plaintiff with notice his claims against these Defendants might be

dismissed under rule 4(m), and he was given an opportunity to respond. Plaintiff has not

objected to this recommendation or otherwise attempted to show good cause for his failure

to serve these Defendants, and the Court finds the recommendation correct.

B. Dismissal for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

In accordance with guidance set forth in Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s &

Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368–69 (9th Cir. 1988), Judge Bencivengo

considered Defendant’s sworn declarations and determined Plaintiff had failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies. Specifically, Defendant Kaiser submitted a declaration showing

Plaintiff had submitted one appeal alleging Plaintiff was improperly removed from a

treatment program, and Plaintiff’s request to be reinstated was granted. (R&R at 4:18–22.)

He submits a second declaration showing a search had been made for all third-level appeals

filed or submitted by Plaintiff relating to psychiatric treatment while he was at Donovan, and

none were found. (Id. at 4:23–26.)

Plaintiff, in both his complaint and his opposition (which the Court construes as his

objections to the R&R), merely asserted he properly exhausted his remedies. The only

specific fact supporting this conclusion was his assertion he sent “documentation” to the

head of health care services for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

(Compl. at 6; Opp’n at 2:9–13.) He does not explain what documentation he sent or when

he sent it, whether before or after filing suit. In his complaint, he says his requests were

partially granted. (Compl. at 6.) He provided no evidence in support of any of these

contentions.

Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R’s conclusion that he did not properly exhaust his

administrative remedies before filing suit is therefore OVERRULED.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01405-LAB-CAB Document 15 Filed 06/23/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 07cv1405

III. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. All claims against Defendants

Saldivar and Hansson are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to timely serve

them with process. Defendant Kaiser’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the remainder

of the complaint, consisting of claims against Defendant Kaiser, is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01405-LAB-CAB Document 15 Filed 06/23/08 Page 4 of 4