Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02548-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RANDOLPH EPPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2548 DFL DAD P

vs.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 General Order No. 262.

On May 23, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections

to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. In his original complaint, plaintiff

stated under penalty of perjury that he did not file an appeal or grievance because pursuit of

administrative remedies is futile. In his amended complaint, plaintiff stated under penalty of

Case 2:04-cv-02548-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

perjury that he did not file a grievance because he was told not to contact the jail commander. In

his objections, which are unsigned and do not purport to be made under penalty of perjury,

plaintiff suggests that he feared retaliation by jail deputies and was also unable to pursue

administrative remedies because of unspecified learning disabilities and a skin condition. These

allegations are insufficient to relieve plaintiff of the exhaustion requirement. Having carefully

reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 23, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies before bringing the action.

DATED: 6/23/2005

 /s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/epps2548.804

Case 2:04-cv-02548-DFL-DAD Document 15 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2