Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00658/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00658-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERT AMBALONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. H. TRIMBLE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00658 AWI DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST BE 

GRANTED

[ECF No. 23]

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Gilbert Ambalong (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action in Fresno 

County Superior Court. On April 25, 2012, Defendants D. B. Allen, F. Igbinosa, R. H. Trimble, 

and J. A. Yates (“Defendants”) filed a notice of removal to this Court. On November 29, 2012, 

Defendants filed a complete copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint. On December 11, 2012, the Court 

screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. 

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. On May 13, 2013, the Court 

issued a Findings and Recommendation which recommended that certain defendants be dismissed. 

On June 21, 2013, the District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full. On July 

2, 2013, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss on the ground that 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 10
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

Plaintiff failed to exhaust state remedies. Following the decision in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 

1162 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court denied the unenumerated 12(b) motion. On May 16, 2014, 

Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to 

exhaust his inmate appeal remedies. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. The motion is deemed 

submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with 

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner 

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This statutory exhaustion requirement applies to 

all inmate suits about prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002) 

(quotation marks omitted), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or the relief offered by 

the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and unexhausted claims 

may not be brought to court, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007) (citing 

Porter, 534 U.S. at 524). 

The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of 

raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. 

“In the rare event that a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a defendant may 

move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Otherwise, the defendants 

must produce evidence proving the failure to exhaust, and they are entitled to summary judgment 

under Rule 56 only if the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, 

shows he failed to exhaust. Id. 

 Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary 

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted);

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166; Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Each party’s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) 

citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 10
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

documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the 

presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible 

evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may 

consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, although it is not required to do 

so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 

(9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

The defendants bear the burden of proof in moving for summary judgment for failure to 

exhaust, Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166, and they must “prove that there was an available administrative 

remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy,” id. at 1172. If the defendants

carry their burden, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff “to come forward with evidence 

showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally 

available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. This requires the plaintiff 

to “show more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 

627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 

S.Ct. 2505 (1986)). “If the undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner 

shows a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56.” Albino, 

747 F.3d at 1166. However, “[i]f material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be 

denied, and the district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts.” Id.

III. Discussion

A. Description of CDCR’s Administrative Remedy Process

Plaintiff is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and CDCR has an administrative remedy process for inmate grievances. 

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1 (2014). Compliance with section 1997e(a) is mandatory and 

state prisoners are required to exhaust CDCR’s administrative remedy process prior to filing suit

in federal court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 

623 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir. 2010). The administrative remedy process is initiated by submitting a 

CDCR Form 602 “Inmate/Parolee Appeal” within thirty calendar days (1) of the event or decision

being appealed, (2) upon first having knowledge of the action or decision being appealed, or (3) 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 10
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

upon receiving an unsatisfactory departmental response to an appeal filed. Tit. 15, §§ 3084.2(a), 

3084.8(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The appeal must “describe the specific issue under 

appeal and the relief requested,” and the inmate “shall list all staff member(s) involved and shall 

describe their involvement in the issue.” § 3084.2(a). Furthermore, the inmate “shall state all 

facts known and available to him/her regarding the issue being appealed at the time of submitting 

the Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form, and if needed, the Inmate Parolee/Appeal Form Attachment.” § 

3084.2(a)(4). 

B. Parties’ Positions

1. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) in Coalinga, 

California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: 

chief medical officer F. Igbinosa, warden R. H. Trimble, medical doctor D. Jardini, and physician 

assistant B. Green.

Plaintiff alleges the following. In May 2007, Plaintiff fell off the top bunk of his prison 

cell, and suffered excruciating pain in his back. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 9. A doctor examined 

Plaintiff’s MRI of his back which indicated that he suffered permanent damage to his lumbar 

spine. FAC ¶ 14. Plaintiff suffers from vertical tears in his spine, degenerative spondylolisthesis 

condition, and chronic lumbar pain. FAC ¶¶ 13-15. Defendants Igbinosa, Trimble, Jardini, and 

Green are aware of Plaintiff’s condition. FAC ¶¶ 17-19. Plaintiff constantly complained of his 

pain to Defendants, filing CDCR 7362 medical requests and CDCR 602 inmate appeals, 

requesting pain medication and complaining of the medical care. FAC ¶¶ 20-21.

On May 19, 2008, Defendant Igbinosa sent Plaintiff to see Dr. Langlois, who concluded 

that Plaintiff suffered from significant pain and recommended pain treatment and procedures. FAC 

¶¶ 23-25. Langlois recommended that Plaintiff return for another consultation to assure the 

effectiveness of the treatment plan. FAC ¶ 26. Defendant Igbinosa refused to follow the

recommendations, with knowledge that this would result in increased pain for Plaintiff. FAC ¶ 27.

Plaintiff became gravely ill in September 16, 2008, and was sent to Mercy Hospital, where he was 

diagnosed with staphylococcus, severe degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, and possible 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 4 of 10
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

5

valley fever. FAC ¶¶ 28-30. Plaintiff was then referred to Dr. Dureza at Mercy Hospital, who 

recommended that Plaintiff undergo a multi-level laminectomy and possible fusion. FAC ¶ 33. Dr. 

Dureza concluded that conservative measures had failed and recommended to Defendant Igbinosa 

that Plaintiff undergo immediate surgery. FAC ¶ 34. Dr. Dureza recommended that Plaintiff return 

in 4 weeks for further consultation. FAC ¶ 35. Defendant Igbinosa refused to provide for surgery 

and refused to allow Plaintiff to consult with Dr. Dureza. FAC ¶¶ 36-37.

Plaintiff filed inmate appeals complaining of the pain and requested his recommended pain 

management and doctor consultations, which were denied by Defendants Igbinosa and Trimble. 

FAC ¶¶ 39-40. On June 3, 2010, Defendant Green discontinued Plaintiff’s Lyrica pain medication 

because Plaintiff was a manipulating whiner, knowing that the discontinuation would result in 

increased pain for Plaintiff. FAC ¶¶ 42, 48, 50.

On February 18, 2011, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Jardini. FAC ¶ 53. Plaintiff 

explained that he had been experiencing excruciating pain in his back, legs, hip, and stomach. 

FAC ¶ 54. Defendant Jardini told Plaintiff that he was going to discontinue all of Plaintiff’s pain 

medication which he was aware would cause Plaintiff further pain. FAC ¶ 55.

Plaintiff requests as relief compensatory and punitive damages, costs of suit, and an order 

that Defendants properly treat Plaintiff’s medical condition.

2. Undisputed Facts

a. Plaintiff is a state inmate suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. FAC ¶¶ 1, 3.

b. During relevant times, Plaintiff was an inmate at PVSP. FAC ¶ 3.

c. Plaintiff is suing PVSP Chief Medical Officer Dr. Igbinosa, PVSP Warden 

Trimble, Medical Doctor D. Jardini, and Physician Assistant B. Green for deliberate indifference 

to his back condition.

1

FAC ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7.

d. Plaintiff alleges three claims against Defendant Igbinosa: 1) that he refused 

to follow Dr. Langlois’ May 19, 2008 recommendations and did not allow a follow-up 

consultation with Dr. Langlois; 2) that he refused to follow Dr. Dureza’s September 16, 2008 

recommendation for immediate back surgery or allow Plaintiff to return for a follow-up 

 

1 Defendants Jardini and Green have not yet been served.

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 5 of 10
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

6

consultation with Dr. Dureza; and 3) that he denied Plaintiff’s appeals requesting Dr. Langlois’ 

and Dr. Dureza’s recommended pain management and follow-up consultations. FAC ¶¶ 27, 36-37, 

39-40.

e. Plaintiff alleges one claim against Warden Trimble: that he denied 

Plaintiff’s appeals requesting Dr. Langlois’ and Dr. Dureza’s recommended pain management and 

follow-up consultations. FAC ¶¶39-40.

f. Plaintiff was aware of the inmate appeal process at PVSP. Zamora Decl. ¶ 

4, Ex. A; FAC ¶ 2.

g. Between May 2007, and August 12, 2011, Plaintiff exhausted two nonmedical inmate appeals: PVSP-09-02167 and PVSP-10-00820. Zamora Decl. ¶ 7.

h. Appeal PVSP-09-02167 concerned religious services. Morgan Decl. ¶ 7, 

Ex. E.

i. Appeal PVSP-10-00820 pertains to a request for disability status and 

privileges. Morgan Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. D.

j. Plaintiff alleges he exhausted his inmate appeal remedies through two 

medical inmate appeals: log no. PVSP 09-11552 and log no. PVSP-10-14718. FAC ¶ 2.

k. Plaintiff only exhausted one medical appeal (PVSP 09-11552) before filing 

his complaint on August 12, 2011. Robinson Decl. ¶ 6.

l. Appeal PVSP-27-09-11552 was dated March 13, 2009, and stated that on 

March 2, 2009, [not 2008] Plaintiff seen by Pain Management Specialist Langlois for his lower 

back, but when he returned, he was not seen by his Primary Care Physician (PCP) and his pain 

medication (Lyrica) was about to expire. Plaintiff requested: 1) to be evaluated by his PCP; 2) “to 

follow the pain management” guidelines specified by Dr. Langlois; and 3) be prescribed the 

correct pain medication. Navarro Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.

m. Appeal PVSP-27-09-11552 was exhausted at the Third Level of review on 

March 20, 2010. Robinson Decl. ¶ 6.

n. Appeal PVSP-10-14718 was dated October 10, 2010, and stated that on 

October 1, 2010, Plaintiff met with “M.D. Barry M. Green,” who stated he was referring him to 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 6 of 10
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

7

have an EMG, which Plaintiff considered to be “useless.” The appeal requested that Plaintiff be 

seen by a neurosurgeon and the PVSP pain management committee “continue pain medication 

treatment.” Navarro Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. D.

o. Appeal PVSP-10-14718 was exhausted at the Third Level of review on 

September 27, 2011, six weeks after the complaint was filed on August 11, 2011. FAC Compl. ¶ 

1; Robinson Decl. ¶ 6.

3. Argument in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

On May 16, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff 

did not exhaust his claims prior to filing suit. In his FAC, Plaintiff contends he exhausted his 

inmate appeal remedies through two medical inmate appeals: PVSP-09-11552 and PVSP-10-

14718. Defendants contend that neither appeal served to exhaust the claims in the FAC. Plaintiff 

did not file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

C. Findings

1. PVSP-10-14718

It is undisputed that appeal PVSP-10-14718 was not exhausted at the Third Level of 

Review until September 27, 2011. Plaintiff, however, initiated this action on August 12, 2011, 

which was six weeks prior to exhaustion of the appeal. Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v. Summerhill, 

449 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2006); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. Id. Nevertheless, when a plaintiff files an 

amended complaint, the amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint. In Rhodes, the 

Ninth Circuit held that the exhaustion requirement is satisfied if the new claims asserted in an 

amended complaint are exhausted prior to tendering the amended complaint to the court for filing. 

Rhodes, 621 F.3d at 1007. In this case, Plaintiff filed the FAC on January 14, 2013. The claims 

stated in the FAC, however, were not exhausted in appeal PVSP-10-14718.

In PVSP-10-14718, Plaintiff complained that he had met with M.D. Barry J. Green who 

advised Plaintiff that he was referring him to have an EMG. Navarro Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff 

complained that the EMG was useless. He requested that he be examined by a neurological 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 7 of 10
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

8

surgeon specializing in spinal cord and nerves, to be reviewed by the PVSP Pain Management 

Committee for a chart and physical examination, and that he continue on the pain medication 

treatment.

Appeal PVSP-10-14718 did not present any allegations concerning Dr. Igbinosa. The 

appeal further did not set forth any claims concerning a refusal to follow Dr. Langlois’ and Dr. 

Dureza’s recommendations, or a refusal to allow follow-up consultations with these doctors. 

Therefore, the appeal did not put prison officials on notice of these claims.

PVSP-10-14718 also fails to mention anything about medical staff allegedly discontinuing 

his medication. In fact, as Defendants point out, the appeal specifically mentions that Green was 

continuing morphine in accordance with the pain management committee. 

In addition, PVSP-10-14718 presents no allegations concerning Warden Trimble. There is 

no mention of any staff member denying Dr. Langlois’ or Dr. Dureza’s recommendations and 

follow-up consultations.

“[T]he prisoner need only provide the level of detail required by the prison’s regulations,” 

and during the relevant time period, “[t]he California regulations require[d] only that an inmate 

describe the problem and the action requested.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d at 824 (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). While the standard provides a low floor, it advances the 

primary purpose of a grievance, which is to notify the prison of a problem. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 

F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009); accord Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Here, Plaintiff’s appeal failed to alert the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is 

now sought – the refusals by Dr. Igbinosa and Warden Trimble to follow the recommendations of 

Dr. Langlois and Dr. Dureza and to allow follow-up visits – and it was therefore insufficient to 

exhaust his Eighth Amendment claim. Sapp, 623 F.3d at 824. Accordingly, PVSP-10-14718 did 

not serve to exhaust any claims presented in the FAC.

2. PVSP-09-11552

In Plaintiff’s appeal PVSP-09-11552, Plaintiff first grieved at the informal level that he 

wanted his primary care physician to follow Dr. Langlois’ recommendations regarding pain 

medication pursuant to his meeting with Dr. Langlois on March 2, 2009. Navarro Decl., Ex. B. 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 8 of 10
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

9

He requested that he be seen by a yard physician regarding Langlois’ pain medication 

recommendations.

After he received his informal response, Plaintiff added a claim at the formal level that he 

desired to be referred to a neurosurgeon. The first level response noted the additional claim and 

Plaintiff was advised that it was inappropriately presented in the appeal. The claim was not 

addressed pending Plaintiff first raising it at the informal level. Plaintiff then appealed to the 

second level where he added a claim challenging the policy of not allowing private contractors to 

order treatment, and added that he wanted to have back surgery. The appeal response noted that 

Plaintiff had added new issues and Plaintiff was advised that the issues would not be addressed 

since it was not appropriate to expand the appeal beyond the original issue. Prison officials 

advised Plaintiff that the appeal was limited to the complaints originally grieved. Under Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.3(c)(4) (2009), an inmate is required to present evidence in an appeal that he 

had attempted to resolve his grievance at the level below. Thus, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies as to all claims not presented at the informal level.

With respect to any claims concerning Defendants Green and Jardini, PVSP-09-11552 did 

not serve to exhaust his administrative remedies. In his FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

Green discontinued his Lyrica medication on June 3, 2010, because he was a manipulative whiner. 

He further alleges that on February 18, 2011, Defendant Jardini told him he was going to 

discontinue his pain medication. These incidents occurred more than a year after he had filed 

appeal PVSP-09-11552. The appeal could not exhaust claims that had not yet accrued.

In his FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Trimble denied his appeals asking for pain 

management and doctor consultations. Appeal PVSP-09-11552 does not mention Defendant 

Trimble, nor does it make any allegation concerning the denial of the appeal. Therefore, the 

appeal did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to claims concerning Defendant Trimble.

Finally, the FAC alleges that Defendant Igbinosa failed to follow Dr. Langlois’ and Dr. 

Dureza’s 2008 recommendations, and that Igbinosa denied all follow-up visits with these doctors. 

Appeal PVSP-09-11552 does not address either of these allegations. Instead, the appeal concerns 

events which occurred after he saw Dr. Langlois in March of 2009. The visits of 2008 and the 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 9 of 10
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

10

doctors recommendations in 2008 were never addressed. Plaintiff does not mention Defendant 

Igbinosa, he does not mention Dr. Dureza, and he makes no allegation concerning denials of 

follow-up visits with any doctor. Therefore, appeal PVSP-09-11552 did not place prison officials 

on notice of Plaintiff’s claims concerning Defendant Igbinosa. 

In sum, PVSP-09-11552 did not exhaust any of Plaintiff’s claims in the FAC.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies with respect to the claims presented in his FAC. Therefore, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, and the FAC be 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, thus terminating this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to objections are due within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 03/03/15 Page 10 of 10