Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01281-5/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

EMANUEL LEWIS BOONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAPIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT RE: EXHAUSTION

(Docs. 26, 39)

Plaintiff Emanuel Lewis Boone 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 proceeds on plaintiff’s first

amended complaint against defendants Tapia and Felix for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, defendants Arroyo and Jimenez for failure to protect in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, and defendants Tapia, Arroyo, and Jimenez for violation of the Due Process 

Clause.

On May 14, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

that defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust be granted. Doc. 39. The 

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 16. On June 17, 2024, 

Plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 40. Though dated June 12, 2024, after the May 31, 2024 deadline 

to file objections, the court considers plaintiff’s objections based on plaintiff’s assertion that he 

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/13/24 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

did not receive the findings and recommendations until June 8, 2024. Id.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. In his objections, plaintiff argues that CDCR conveniently loses or does not receive 

grievances. Doc. 40. However, plaintiff has not presented evidence supporting this assertion, and 

he does identify any basis to dispute the magistrate judge’s finding that he failed to timely 

exhaust his administrative remedies.

Plaintiff argues that summary judgment on exhaustion grounds violates his right to seek 

redress with the courts because he tried to file a grievance but CDCR refused it. Id. However, as 

the magistrate judge noted, plaintiff submitted a grievance approximately two years after the 

incident. Doc. 39 at 13. That grievance was deemed untimely and was cancelled. Id. As the 

magistrate judge found, plaintiff fails to establish that he submitted an earlier, timely grievance. 

Moreover, plaintiff failed to timely appeal the cancellation of the grievance he submitted two 

years after the incident. Plaintiff could have appealed that cancellation and argued that he had 

submitted a prior grievance that was not processed, but he failed to do so. Id. at 15. Where an 

appeal is cancelled due to a procedural error on the part of the inmate, administrative remedies 

remain available to the inmate – namely, appealing the cancellation decision. See Cortinas v. 

Portillo, 754 F. App'x 525, 527 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Because [plaintiff] could have appealed his 

cancellation decision ... the improper cancellation of his appeal did not render administrative 

remedies effectively unavailable to him”). Because plaintiff did not appeal the cancellation of his 

grievance and has not produced evidence necessary to carry his burden that a prior timely 

grievance was filed (see Doc. 39 at 13-15), summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies is appropriate.

Having reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 14, 2024, (Doc. 39), are adopted;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, (Doc. 26), is 

GRANTED;

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/13/24 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

3. This action is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 41 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 3