Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05023/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05023-7/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

ARNOLD LEVI,

Plaintiff,

v.

HIRSCH, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5023 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF”S MOTION

TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD NEW

DEFENDANTS FOR ACTIONS OCCURRING

SUBSEQUENT TO FILING OF COMPLAINT

(Doc. 42-1) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT PLAINTIFF”S “MOTION TO

DISMISS DEFENDANT DOE (aka Dr. Kim.)”

(Doc. 42-2)

 Arnold Levi (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 19,2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Dismiss ‘Doe’ Defendant,

aka Dr. Kim and Request to Supplement Complaint to include actions by Defendants Hirsch and

Traynham that Occured [sic] Subsquant [sic] to Filing of Complaint.” 

A. Motion To Dismiss Defendant Doe

On March 25, 2005, this Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with leave to Amend. 

Plaintiff informed the Court on April 11, 2005, that he wished to proceed only with the claims

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 50 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 4
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

found cognizable and abandon those claims not cognizable. Thus, on April 15, 2005, the Court

issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss all claims not cognizable. The Court also

issued a separate order directing the Clerk of Court to forward Plaintiff the necessary service

forms for completion and return to the Court. Plaintiff did not timely submit the forms. Thus,

the Court issued Findings and Recommendations on June 1, 2005. Plaintiff then submitted the

USM 285 forms in compliance with the Court Order. The Court then vacated the Findings and

Recommendations. 

Upon review of the USM 285 forms submitted by Plaintiff on July 11, 2005, it appears

that Plaintiff has included a “Dr. Kim” in place of the Doe Defendant against whom the Court

found the Eighth Amendment claim cognizable. Plaintiff was informed that he needed to filed

substitution of parties in order to add Dr. Kim in place of Dr. Doe. However, Plaintiff has now

elected to dismiss his claims against Dr. Doe (or Dr. Kim) altogether. 

In light of Plaintiff’s expressed desire to dismiss the allegations against Defendant Doe

and Defendant Doe from the action, the Court will recommend that Defendant Doe be dismissed. 

B. Motion to Amend

Plaintiff also indicates that he wishes to amend the Complaint to allege new claims

against the remaining Defendants Traynham and Hirsch for actions which have occurred

subsequent to the filing of the instant Complaint. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s request cannot be

granted. 

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). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while

the suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

In this case, as the instant action was filed on January 8, 2003, any allegations arising

since the initiation of this suit will have not been exhausted prior to the commencement of the

action under the PLRA. In addition, as noted above, any new claims cannot be exhausted while

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 50 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 4
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

the suit is pending. Plaintiff’s only remedy regarding the new allegations occurring subsequent to

the filing of this suit, is to file another suit but only after he has exhausted his administrative

remedies with respect to those claims. 

Plaintiff should note further that the instant action and claims are not immune from

dismissal on exhaustion grounds. Exhaustion is an affirmative defense under which Defendants

have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Because the dispositive motion deadline in this action has not yet

expired, in the event Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the

claims at issue in the pending action, it is possible that Defendants will move for dismissal on

those grounds. However, as the deadline has yet to expire, it is not known if and whether the

Defendants will so move. In any event, the new claims Plaintiff seeks to now include are

unexhausted and cannot be included in the instant action. Accordingly, his Motion must be

denied. 

C. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Amend to include new claims against the Defendants named in this

action is DENIED; 

The Court FURTHER RECOMMENDS: 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Doe and the claims against him be

GRANTED and Defendant Doe be dismissed from the action. 

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 50 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05023-LJO -SMS Document 50 Filed 10/19/05 Page 4 of 4