Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01648/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01648-9/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

ERIC JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. D. SHEPPARD-BROOKS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01648-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 26)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO EXHAUST AND DISMISSING

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 21)

Plaintiff Eric Johnson (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 April 6, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations that recommended defendants’ motion to dismiss be

granted and this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 06/04/07 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

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On April

26, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

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, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the

objections plaintiff contends, as he did in his opposition, that

he did present an appeal to the third and final level. Plaintiff

continues to argue that he sent an appeal to Sacramento for third

level review but it was somehow intercepted. In response to the

Magistrate Judge’s finding that plaintiff failed to provide

evidence to support his position, plaintiff contends in the

objections that he is not required to know all the people whose

hands his mail would have gone through. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, because defendants met

its initial burden, the burden to prove exhaustion has shifted to

plaintiff. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence, such as

declarations, a copy of the third level appeal, or other

evidence, showing that after receiving the second level response

to his appeal, he timely submitted the appeal to the third level.

Thus, defendants are entitled to dismissal of this action based

on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 6, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed January 11, 2007,

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 06/04/07 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

is GRANTED; and,

3. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 3