Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05049/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05049-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLEZ WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff, CV F 02-5049 AWI WMW P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS

vs. AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

J. BUTLER, DISMISS (Document #54)

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a 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 March 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff filed this action

outside of 42 U.S.C. § 1983's statute of limitations. These Findings and Recommendations were

served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within 15 days. 

On March 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections. Plaintiff contends that the filing date of

this action should relate back to the filing date of Plaintiff’s earlier civil rights complaint.

Case 1:02-cv-05049-AWI-WMW Document 78 Filed 03/28/06 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the entire file, the court finds the Findings and

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In his objections,

Plaintiff points out that in 1999 he filed a civil rights action against Defendant, which was given

the case number CV F 99-5538 AWI HGB P. The court dismissed case number CV F 99-5538

AWI HGB P for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

Defendant argues that case number CV F 99-5538 AWI HGB P was improperly dismissed

because exhaustion is not required for claims of retaliation and excessive force, and the current

action should relate back to the filing date of the original action for statute of limitations

purposes.

As found by the court when dismissing case number CV F 99-5538 AWI HGB P, “[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); Booth v.

Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819, 1821, 1825 (2001). In the Ninth Circuit, Section 1997e(a)’s

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534

U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Thus, Plaintiff’s contention that the court should not have dismissed case

number CV F 99-5538 AWI HGB P because exhaustion was not necessary for claims concerning

retaliation and excessive force is without merit. The exhaustion requirement applies to these

claims.

Plaintiff also contends that this action relates back to case number CV F 99-5538 AWI

HGB P for statute of limitations purposes. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures

provides in part that “an amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original

pleading” when one of three alternative provisions are met. Subdivision (c)(2) allows an

amendment to relate back when the claim . . . asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the

Case 1:02-cv-05049-AWI-WMW Document 78 Filed 03/28/06 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

3

conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2). Because this action and case number CV F 99-5538 AWI HGB P

concern the same claims alleged against the same defendant, Plaintiff argues this action should

relate back to the filing date of case number CV F 99-5538 AWI HGB P. Plaintiff is incorrect. 

A party cannot use the rule governing the relation back of amendments of pleadings once an

action has been dismissed and a final judgment entered unless the judgment is set aside under the

rules allowing amendment of, or relief from, judgment. Griffey v. Lindsey, 345 F.3d 1058, 1062

(9th Cir. 2003), opinion vacated on denial of reh'g on other grounds, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.

2003); Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, judgment was entered in

case number CV F 99-5538 AWI HGB P. No motion to set aside judgment in case number CV

F 99-5538 AWI HGB P has been filed nor would such a motion likely be granted because

exhaustion is necessary and Plaintiff had not exhausted his claims prior to filing case number CV

F 99-5538 AWI HGB P. Thus, Plaintiff’s objections offer no reason to not adopt the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to file this action

within the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2. This action is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of the court is DIRECTED to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05049-AWI-WMW Document 78 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 3