Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00601/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00601-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

XZAVR MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. GRIECO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00601-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND

(ECF Nos. 43, 47, & 48)

Plaintiff Xzavr Moore aka Amber Moore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant 

C. Grieco (“Defendant”) for First Amendment retaliation.

On September 27, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (ECF No. 43.) 

On January 6, 2020. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 

recommendations recommending “(1) that Defendant’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 

43.) be granted and that Plaintiff’s claim be dismissed without prejudice; and (2) that the Clerk of 

Court be directed to close this case.” (ECF No. 47.)

Case 1:18-cv-00601-LJO-EPG Document 49 Filed 01/21/20 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

2

The Court gave Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. While that time period has not yet elapsed, on January 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed 

a motion to amend her first amendment complaint and stated that she does not “wish to waste the 

courts [sic] time filing an objection.” (ECF No. 48.) Instead, Plaintiff seeks to file an amended 

complaint, arguing that “all administrative remedies are now exhausted.” 

The Court treats Plaintiff’s motion to amend as a statement of non-objection to the 

findings and recommendations. At any rate, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

As for Plaintiff’s motion to amend, the Court finds that the proposed amendment would be 

futile and DENIES the motion on that basis. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 

(9th Cir. 1990) (noting that a motion to amend may be denied as futile). It appears that Plaintiff 

wishes to amend to clarify that the first amendment retaliation claim is now exhausted. But 

exhaustion must occur prior to the filing of suit—not during the pendency of the litigation. See 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (joining other circuit courts to find that 

an inmate must exhaust before filing complaint); see also Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116, 123 (2d 

Cir. 2001) (“[A]llowing prisoner suits to proceed, so long as the inmate eventually fulfills the 

exhaustion requirement, undermines Congress’ directive to pursue administrative remedies prior 

to filing a complaint in federal court.”). Accordingly, the proposed amendment would be futile, as 

Plaintiff admits a failure to exhaust the First Amendment retaliation claim prior to filing the first 

amended complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 6, 2020, (ECF No. 47.) are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative 

Remedies (ECF No. 43.) is GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant C. Grieco is 

Case 1:18-cv-00601-LJO-EPG Document 49 Filed 01/21/20 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

3

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 48.) is DENIED; and 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00601-LJO-EPG Document 49 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 3