Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02181/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02181-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC ANDREW O’DELL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2181-WQH-BGS

ORDER

vs.

JEFF MUNGER; G. BADILLA,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

29) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, recommending that the

Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Jeff Munger and G. Badilla (ECF No. 20) be granted.

BACKGROUND

On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff Eric Andrew O’Dell, a state prisoner incarcerated at

Calipatria State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against four prison officials,

asserting claims for deprivation of his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights in violation

of 42 U.S.C. section 1983. (ECF No. 1). 

On November 28, 2011, the Court issued a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915(A)(b). The Court sua sponte dismissed the Fourteenth

Amendment claims asserted by Plaintiff without leave to amend. The Court sua sponte

dismissed Defendants Small, Madden, and Nelson on the grounds that “Plaintiff’s Complaint

fails to set forth facts which might be liberally construed to support an individualized

constitutional claim against Defendants Small, Madden or Nelson.” In Count One, which the

- 1 - 11cv2181-WQH-BGS

Case 3:11-cv-02181-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 01/02/13 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

Court found to be sufficiently plead to survive sua sponte dismissal, Plaintiff alleged that

Defendants Munger and Badilla used excessive force against him, violating his Eighth

Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff seeks money

damages in the amount of $4 million.

On April 2, 2012, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). (ECF No. 14). Defendants contend that the Eighth

Amendment claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants Munger and Badilla should be

dismissed on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as

required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PJRA”). (ECF No. 14-1 at 4-10) (citing 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s claim for damages should be

dismissed because Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity and the Court “lacks

jurisdiction to hear monetary claims against a state or state officials in their official capacities.” 

Id. at 3.

On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16). 

Plaintiff contends that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied because he has exhausted his

administrative remedies. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff asserts that “on about April 22, 2009

Plaintiff did send a CDC 602 to the appeals coordinator that was filed on 4-29-2009... In this

appeal I did state that I was wrongfully assaulted by Officer J. Munger....” Id. at 1. Plaintiff

asserts that he requested, in his CDC appeal, a copy of the prison incident report, copies of

medical records, and an investigation into this matter by the Office of Internal Affairs. Id. at

1-2. Plaintiff requests that “if the court[] finds that Petitioner has not exhausted his

administrative remedies that it dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and that all equitable

tolling be granted in this case while Petitioner exhausts his administrative remedies.” Id. at

3.

On October 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation,

recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 21). The Magistrate Judge

recommended that the Eighth Amendment claims be dismissed with leave to amend on the

grounds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and the claims are

- 2 - 11cv2181-WQH-BGS

Case 3:11-cv-02181-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 01/02/13 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

barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the

monetary claims be dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that the Defendants have

immunity from such claims under the Eleventh Amendment and any attempt to amend would

be futile. The Report and Recommendation provided that any objections must be filed no later

than seventeen days after receiving a copy of the Report and Recommendation.

The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been

filed.

REVIEW OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to

which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not

review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. 

See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After review of the Report and Recommendation, the Complaint, and the submissions

of the parties, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge set forth the correct legal standard

for evaluating a motion to dismiss filed in a section 1983 prisoner civil rights action. See ECF

No. 21 at 4 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions under section 1983 of this title ... until such administrative remedies as are available

are exhausted.”); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F. 3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a

non-enumerated Rule 12(b) motion is the proper method of establishing non-exhaustion of

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(a))). The Magistrate Judge correctly

found that “Plaintiff never pursued any of his grievances through the final level of review” and

that “Plaintiff does not qualify for an exception to the exhaustion requirements.” (ECF No.

21 at 7-8). The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies and that the Eighth Amendment claims asserted by Plaintiff should

- 3 - 11cv2181-WQH-BGS

Case 3:11-cv-02181-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 01/02/13 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

be dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 8; see also Wyatt, 315 F. 3d at 1108. The Magistrate

Judge correctly concluded that the monetary claims asserted by Plaintiff should be dismissed

with prejudice. Id. at 8-9; see also Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71

(1989).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is

adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Count One of the Complaint

is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend, but “only if [Plaintiff] first

exhausts his administrative remedies.” Id. at 9. The monetary claims asserted by Plaintiff are

DISMISSED with prejudice.

DATED: January 2, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv2181-WQH-BGS

Case 3:11-cv-02181-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 01/02/13 Page 4 of 4