Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05282/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05282-3/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,

v.

W. HENSE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5282-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE (Docs. 50 and 59)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, AND

REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NEW

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Docs.

43 and 59)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF THE

COURT’S ORDER OF MAY 9, 2005 (Doc. 56)

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 June 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations (F&R)

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and defendants’ motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust be granted, thus concluding this action in its entirety. The F&R was

served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections were to be filed within

thirty days. On July 28, 2005, plaintiff filed an objection to the portion of the F&R relating to

defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 62 Filed 08/18/05 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

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 F&R to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. However, in his

objection, plaintiff contends that he did not receive the Court’s order of May 9, 2005, in which

plaintiff was (1) notified that the Court would not consider both his opposition to an earlier motion

to dismiss and his opposition to the current motion to dismiss, and (2) provided with an opportunity

to either stand by his opposition to the current motion or submit a new opposition raising all the

arguments he wishes the Court to consider. Plaintiff contends that because he did not receive the

order, he was deprived of the opportunity provided by the Court to file a new opposition to the

motion to dismiss.

The portion of the F&R relating to defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust shall

be vacated. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a new

opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff is reminded that if he files a new opposition, the Court

will consider only the new opposition and will not consider plaintiff’s opposition to the first motion

filed September 10, 2004, opposition to the second motion filed February 25, 2005, supplemental

declaration filed February 28, 2005, or objection to the F&R filed July 28, 2005. The Court will only

consider one opposition to the motion. Therefore, plaintiff’s new opposition must be complete

within itself.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 30, 2005, is adopted in part and

vacated in part as follows:

a. The recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed

April 1, 2005, be DENIED on the ground that it is procedurally deficient is

GRANTED and plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, without prejudice; and

b. The recommendation that defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

be GRANTED is vacated;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a courtesy copy of the Court’s order of May

9, 2005;

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 62 Filed 08/18/05 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

3. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a new

opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss; 

4. Defendants have eleven (11) days from the date of service of plaintiff’s new

opposition to file a reply, if any; and

5. Because the Findings and Recommendations is being vacated solely so that plaintiff

may file a new opposition, the Findings and Recommendations will be deemed

reinstated by the Court if plaintiff does not file a new opposition within thirty days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 62 Filed 08/18/05 Page 3 of 3