Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00011-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

McINTRNY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0011 MCE CKD P

ORDER

On May 19, 2015, this court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies was clear on 

the face of the complaint. (ECF No. 56.) However, the court granted plaintiff thirty days’ leave 

to file an amended complaint “that complies with the exhaustion requirement or explains why 

exhaustion was ‘effectively unavailable.’” (Id. at 3.)

On June 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a belated opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

(ECF No. 57.) On the same day, he filed a document titled “Amended and Supplement 832.5 

Complaint to Original Complaint.” (ECF No. 58.) It alleges continuing wrongdoing by prison 

staff and does not address the issue of exhaustion. (Id.) Defendant has filed an opposition 

arguing that neither of these filings comply with the court’s May 19, 2015 order, as plaintiff has 

shown neither exhaustion nor good cause for failing to exhaust. (ECF No. 61.) 

////

Case 2:14-cv-00011-MCE-CKD Document 62 Filed 08/24/15 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

27

28

2

The undersigned agrees that plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint that complies 

with its earlier order and thus will recommend dismissal of this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: August 24, 2015

2 / ande011.fta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00011-MCE-CKD Document 62 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 2