Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01300/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01300-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS, No. CIV S-09-1300-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

MICHAEL FOX,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before

the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Plaintiff originally filed this action in May 2009, naming several defendants. The

court found service appropriate for defendant Fox, and authorized service in November 2009. 

Other defendants were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the action proceeded against

defendant Fox only. In March 2010, defendant Fox filed a motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court granted the motion, and denied

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, finding plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative

1

Case 2:09-cv-01300-CMK Document 42 Filed 10/30/12 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

remedies because he was unsatisfied with the results of his prison grievance, even though the

grievance was granted at the first level of review, and he failed to appeal the inmate grievance

decision through all three levels of review. Plaintiff then appealed this court’s decision and

dismissal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with this court’s determination, finding

that because plaintiff’s grievance was “fully granted” at the first level of review, and that plaintiff

was satisfied with that determination, he had thereby exhausted his administrative remedies. See

Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth Circuit thus reversed this court’s

decision, and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff’s claims against defendant Fox.

The decision of the Ninth Circuit is essentially a denial of defendant’s motion to

dismiss. As such, defendant Fox will now be required to file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint

(Doc. 1). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Fox shall file an answer

to plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. 

DATED: October 29, 2012

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:09-cv-01300-CMK Document 42 Filed 10/30/12 Page 2 of 2