Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01505/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01505-16/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY LAMONT DOWD,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. TEATER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 /

Case No. 1:07-cv-01505-OWW-DLB

(PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART

(Doc. 56)

Plaintiff Rodney Lamont Dowd (“Plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on July

8, 2008, against defendants S. Meyst, J. Teater, J. Argurraide,

M. Jenan, K. Ward, A. Defosses, and McCollum for excessive force

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred 1

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

S. Meyst and J. Argurraide have not appeared in this action. All other claims and defendants were

1

dismissed from the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Docs. 18, 20.)

1

Case 1:07-cv-01505-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 03/22/10 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

27

28

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 14, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. 

On December 21, 2009, after receiving an extension of time,

Plaintiff filed his Objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having

carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not support a finding that

Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies prior to

initiating this action. Plaintiff contends that he asked what

part of his 602 inmate appeal was partially granted at the first

level. Plaintiff contends that it was the prison officials’

delay in answering Plaintiff that caused him to not properly

exhaust. Plaintiff’s contentions fail to dispute the evidence

submitted by Defendants in support of the motion to dismiss.2

On November 17, 2009, Plaintiff was granted leave to submit

new service documents for the United States Marshal to re-attempt

On August 28, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a 602 inmate grievance complaining of Defendant officers’

2

conduct and requesting punishment, reimbursement for property damage, and an apology. (Doc. 36, Mot. To

Dismiss, Ex. B.) Plaintiff received a response at the first level of review on October 11, 2007, which partially

granted Plaintiff’s appeal in that an inquiry was conducted. Plaintiff was advised to submit his staff complaint

through all levels of appeal if he sought further relief. On November 7, 2007, Plaintiff submitted his inmate appeal

to the second level of review, requesting an explanation of what portion of his appeal had been granted. On

November 29, 2007, Plaintiff received a response, indicating that his appeal was partially granted in that a staff

inquiry had been made, and to appeal to the Director’s level if he was dissatisfied. Any delay in exhaustion of

administrative remedies was on the part of Plaintiff, not prison officials.

Plaintiff’s citation of Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) is unavailing. Plaintiff here could have

obtained further relief via the administrative process.

2

Case 1:07-cv-01505-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 03/22/10 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

27

28

service on Defendants Meyst and Argurraide, who have yet to

appear before the Court. Dismissal of the action at this time

would be premature. The Court thus declines to adopt the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal of the action

without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 14,

2009, is adopted in part;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure

to exhaust administrative remedies, filed April 27,

2009, is granted;

3. Defendants J. Teater, M. Jenan, K. Ward, A. Defosses,

and M. McCollum are dismissed from the action; and

///

///

4. This action proceeds against Defendants Meyst and

Argurraide.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01505-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 3