Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01401-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONE COLLINS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1401 LKK KJM P

vs.

LIEUTENANT PULSIPHER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On March 31, 2005, the court adopted the magistrate judges findings and

recommendations, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and entered judgment.

On April 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 31,

2005 order under the authority of L.R. 78-230(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) and a request for

an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal. 

Plaintiff relies on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo v. Woodford, F.3d 

[2005 WL 6744707] (9th Cir. 2005), which held that an inmate has exhausted all available

remedies even when a grievance is rejected as time-barred because no further level of appeal

remains in the prison grievance system. F.3d [2005 WL 6744707 * 10]. In this case, in

contrast, plaintiff withdrew his grievance, allegedly because officials promised he would be

Case 2:03-cv-01401-LKK -KJM Document 27 Filed 04/27/05 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

2

released from segregation if he did so. Nevertheless, plaintiff did not pursue any grievances or

attempt to revive the withdrawn grievance when he was not released from segregation; such

remedies are available within the meaning of the PLRA. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s April 18, 2005 motion for reconsideration of the order of March 31,

2005 is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to file the notice of appeal

is granted; and

3. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal must be filed no later than May 30, 2005.

DATED: April 26, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/coll1401.60(b)

Case 2:03-cv-01401-LKK -KJM Document 27 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2