Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01008/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01008-14/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHADALE L. WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

N. GRANNIS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 07-CV-1008 AWI DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Documents #59 & #66)

Shadale L. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action against a prison official 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 302. 

 On January 20, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations,

recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies be granted in part. The Findings and Recommendations gave notice that

any objections were to be filed within thirty days. On February 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed

objections. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Case 1:07-cv-01008-AWI-DLB Document 68 Filed 03/25/10 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

court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995,

“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “[P]roper

exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion requirement may not be

satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Woodford v.

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s

deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. at 90. Here, Plaintiff’s appeal was denied

as untimely because it was not filed within 15 days of the disciplinary hearing at which Plaintiff

was found guilty. Plaintiff contends that he did appeal within 15 days of receiving the relevant

written ruling. However, Plaintiff offers no evidence that he was required to wait until he

received the written ruling before he could appeal. The California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation requires an appeal be submitted within 15 working days of the event or

decision being appealed. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.6(c). On their face, the regulations

require an appeal be filed within 15 days of the decision being appealed and not 15 days from the

date the inmate receives a written copy of a disciplinary decision. Thus, the objections provide

no basis to not adopt the Findings and Recommendations.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations entered on January 20, 2010 are

ADOPTED in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part; 

3. Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of the First Amendment by retaliatory

disciplinary action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies;

4. Defendants Tyson, Hedgpeth, Hill and Arlitz are dismissed from this

2

Case 1:07-cv-01008-AWI-DLB Document 68 Filed 03/25/10 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

action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; 

5. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lopez,

Brubaker, and Spaeth for a violation of the Eighth Amendment and against

Defendants Grannis and Bautista for supervisory liability; and

6. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01008-AWI-DLB Document 68 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 3