Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06299/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06299-3/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN MULLICANE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARSHALL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06299-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 51)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT (Doc. 42)

Plaintiff, Glenn Mullicane (“Plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 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 December 1, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be

denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the

parties which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within thirty (30) days. 

On December 23, 2005, defendants filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-06299-AWI-LJO Document 55 Filed 03/03/06 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, including the objections, the Court finds the

Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

In the objections, Defendants contend that the Magistrate

Judge’s reliance on Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (9th Cir 2005),

is misplaced because it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s

holding in Booth v. Churner,532 U.S. 731 (2001). The court

disagrees and finds the court is bound by Brown v. Valoff, 422

F.3d 926 (9th Cir 2005). Plaintiff was not required to continue

to pursue administrative review after he was told his

administrative appeal had been granted because he was given all

available relief. See Brown, 422 F.3d at 936.

Defendant argues that even applying Brown, Plaintiff did not

exhaust. Defendant argues that Plaintiff was clearly not

satisfied by the fact his appeal was granted because he continued

to complain about safety concerns at classification hearings. 

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff had been placed in the SHU

(Segregated Housing Unit) and additional relief was available

because he could have been housed in the PHU (Protected Housing

Unit. 

Preliminarily, the court notes that this argument is not

properly before the court A new theory cannot properly be

raised in objections to Findings and Recommendations. Greenhow

v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1988), 

overruled on other grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d

Case 1:03-cv-06299-AWI-LJO Document 55 Filed 03/03/06 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

3

1347 (9th Cir.1992). Factual assertions that which could have

been but were not presented to the Magistrate Judge ahoudl be

given no consideration when the court is deciding whether to

adopt Findings and Recommendations Sundaram v. County of Santa

Barbara, 2001 WL 540515, *1 (C.D.Cal. 2001); Beam System, Inc. v.

Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 423113, *9 n.9 (C.D.Cal. 1997). 

Regardless, a prisoner does not need to continue to pursue

administrative review after all "available" relief has been

accorded. Brown, 422 F.3d at 936. Brown does not require a

Plaintiff to continue to pursue administrative review merely

because he is not satisfied with the relief he is given. The

appeal stated it was granted. The reasonable import of this

appeal is that no further relief would be available through the

administrative process. See Brown, 422 F.3d at 937. The court

finds requiring Plaintiff to know that despite the fact his

appeal was granted he should have appealed further and requested

a PHU assignment instead of a SHU assignment, goes beyond the

requirement of Brown.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 1,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, filed

April 20, 2005, is DENIED; and

3. Defendant’s Answer is due within the time allotted by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure following

disposition of a pre-answer Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Case 1:03-cv-06299-AWI-LJO Document 55 Filed 03/03/06 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

4

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06299-AWI-LJO Document 55 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 4