Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05464/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05464-19/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSIE SHAWNEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05464-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND

PROVIDING THAT NO FURTHER MOTIONS

FOR RECONSIDERATION RELATING TO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FILED MAY 10, 2006, OR ORDER FILED

JUNE 26, 2006, WILL BE ENTERTAINED

(Doc. 65)

I. Order

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Charles Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2006, the Honorable

Lawrence J. O’Neill issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that defendants

Scribner and Cortez’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust be granted. (Doc. 61.) No objections

were filed within the thirty-day time period provided by Judge O’Neill and on June 26, 2006, the

undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full and dismissed defendants Cortez

and Scribner from this action. (Doc. 62.) 

On July 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion forreconsideration requesting that the order of June

26 be vacated on the ground that plaintiff did not receive the Findings and Recommendations and

was therefore unable to object. (Doc. 65.) In response, the Court issued an order on September 18,

Case 1:04-cv-05464-LJO -LJO Document 83 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 5
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

2006, directing plaintiff to supplement his motion by setting forth his objections to the Findings and

Recommendations. (Doc. 69.) After obtaining an extension of time, plaintiff filed a supplement on

December 11, 2006. (Doc. 78.) Defendants Scribner and Cortez filed a reply on December 22,

2006, and plaintiff filed a surreply on January 8, 2007. (Docs. 79, 80.)

B. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse

party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.

1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds,

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988).

The Ninth Circuit has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive

of the preceding clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. KaiserCement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338

(9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly,

“the clause is reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. When filing a motion for

reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or

circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or

what other grounds exist for the motion.”

C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Because plaintiff did not receive the Findings and Recommendations, the Court will

consider his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Only if the Court would have

declined to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in whole or in part will the Court will vacate

its order of June 26, 2006. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05464-LJO -LJO Document 83 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Pursuant to statutory mandate, prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative

remedies prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, Nos. 05-7058, 05-7142, 2007 WL

135890, *8 (Jan. 22, 2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002).

Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief

offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). The

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an inmate appeals process for prisoner

complaints, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1, and in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement,

California state prisoners are required to use this appeals process to exhaust their claims prior to

filing suit, Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

Judge O’Neill reviewed plaintiff’s inmate appeal in its entirety and considered plaintiff’s

argument that the appeal grieved the conduct on defendants Scribner and Cortez, but found

defendants were entitled to dismissal from this action because plaintiff’s inmate appeal did not

grieve the claims against them. Plaintiff argues that Judge O’Neill erred in concluding that the

appeal was insufficient to exhaust the claims against Scribner and Cortez.

Plaintiff is seeking to impose liability under section 1983 against defendant Cortez for

retaliating against him and endangering his safety in December 2002, and against defendant

Scribner for failing, in October 2002, to stop defendants Shawnego and Cates from violating

plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. The exhaustion requirement allows “a prison to

address complaints about the program it administers before being subjected to suit . . . .” and “[t]he

level of detail necessary in a grievance” to satisfy the exhaustion requirement depends on the

prison’s requirements, not on section 1997e(a). Jones, 2007 WL 135890 at *12. In this instance,

the applicable regulation provides that an inmate “may appeal any departmental decision, action,

condition, or policywhich they can demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Tit.

15, § 3084.1(a). The form inmates are required to utilize requests that the inmate describe the

problem and set forth the action requested. Id. at § 3084.2(a); Doc. 65, Exhibit B.

Despite plaintiff’s contention otherwise, Judge O’Neill did not impose upon plaintiff a

requirement that plaintiff name all the defendants in his inmate appeal and did not find that because

Case 1:04-cv-05464-LJO -LJO Document 83 Filed 02/08/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

plaintiff failed to specifically name all the defendants, he failed to exhaust. The appeal form does

not require specific identification and this Court has never required specific identification. See

Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2005) (reasonable modification/accommodation

form did not require identification of specific individuals). Judge O’Neill acknowledged as much

and stated that “the appeal[, however,] must place prison officials on notice as to the misconduct

complained of.” (Doc. 61, 6:12-13.) In reviewing the contents of the appeal and reaching the

determination that the appeal did not grieve the conduct of Cortez, Judge O’Neill discussed

plaintiff’s failure to name Cortez in the appeal and plaintiff’s failure to set forth Cortez’s misconduct

in the appeal. Rather than imposing a requirement that plaintiff name all the defendants in the

appeal, Judge O’Neill considered the record, which included the contents of the appeal and the

prison officials’ response to the appeal, and made his determination. 

The other arguments made by plaintiff in his objections were addressed by Judge O’Neill.

Plaintiff disagrees with the conclusions drawn by the judge. However, despite plaintiff’s contention

to the contrary, the judge did not ignore plaintiff’s evidence. Rather, he considered the evidence

submitted by plaintiff and concluded that the appeal did not exhaust plaintiff’s claims against

defendant Cortez and defendant Scribner. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and

proper analysis.

D. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed July 14, 2006, is GRANTED to the extent

that this Court has considered his objections to Judge O’Neill’s Findings and

Recommendations, but DENIED with prejudice to the extent it seeks to set aside the

order adopting the Findings and Recommendations; and

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05464-LJO -LJO Document 83 Filed 02/08/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

2. No further motions for reconsideration relating to the Findings and

Recommendations filed on May 102, 2006, or this Court’s order filed June 26, 2006,

will be entertained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05464-LJO -LJO Document 83 Filed 02/08/07 Page 5 of 5