Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-17/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

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K'NAPP, 1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vs. (Doc. 51.)

D. G. ADAMS, et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 40.)

Defendants.

__________________________________/

Eric Charles Rodney K'napp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action 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 August 23, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed on February 19, 2010, be granted in part

and denied in part. (Doc. 51.) On March 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. (Doc. 67.) On March 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge entered an order for

Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 68.) On May 9, 2011, Defendants filed a

reply to the objections. (Doc. 73.) On August 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed supplemental objections. 

(Doc. 85.)

1

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 03/12/12 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

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

including Plaintiff's objections and supplemental objections, and Defendants’ reply to the objections,

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Plaintiff objected at length to the findings and recommendations. Four of Plaintiff's

arguments merit a response. First, Plaintiff contends that his April 10, 2005 grievance was not

submitted untimely to the Director’s Level. Plaintiff maintains that he had fifteen working days in

which to submit the appeal, beginning on June 27, 2005, the date he received the Second Level

response. Thus, by Plaintiff’s account, he had until July 19, 2005 to submit the appeal to the

Director’s Level. Plaintiff claims he timely “submitted” the appeal when he attempted to mail it, on 1

June 28, July 1, July 12, and July 19, 2005. Plaintiff argues that the appeal was timely because he

“submitted” the appeal within 15 working days, in compliance with the regulations, even if the

appeals office did not “receive” it within 15 working days. Alternately, Plaintiff argues that if the

appeal was received late, it was because defendants obstructed him from completing the process by

refusing to provide him with free postage, to which he was entitled. Plaintiff also contends that

defendants did not timely supply him with postage-paid envelopes, to which he was entitled, in spite

of his requests, and when he attempted to use some of the postage-paid envelopes by stapling them

to a larger envelope, defendants removed the stapled envelopes and returned the mail to Plaintiff for

lack of postage. Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. Plaintiff argues that he “submitted” the appeal

when he placed it in the outgoing mail. However, the appeal was not “submitted” to the Director if

Plaintiff placed it in the mail without postage to mail it. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 86, 126

S.Ct. 2378 (2006) (to exhaust at the third level, inmate “must explain the basis for his or her

dissatisfaction on part H or the [appeal form] and mail the form to the Director of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation within 15 working days”) (citation omitted; emphasis

added); Cal Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.6(c). Because the form was not mailed, and the fault was

June 27, 2000 was a Monday, and Plaintiff had fifteen working days to submit the appeal. Beginning with Tuesday,

1

June 28, 2000, and not counting weekends or July 4th, the deadline to submit the appeal was July 19, 2000.

2

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 03/12/12 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

Plaintiff’s, the appeal was therefore not submitted to the Director on the dates Plaintiff purposely

placed it in the outgoing mail without postage.

Second, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that many of his appeals did not

address defendants’ retaliatory conduct because they did not mention retaliation. Plaintiff argues that

he is not required to use the term “retaliation,” which is a legal term, to put defendants on notice that

he is complaining about retaliatory behavior. While the Court agrees that Plaintiff is not required to

use the term “retaliation” to put defendants on notice of retaliatory acts, he must use language that

would notify defendants that adverse actions were taken against him for a retaliatory reason, for

example, because Plaintiff filed inmate appeals. To allege retaliatory action, it is not enough to

allege the action without also expressing the retaliatory reason for the action.

Third, Plaintiff contends that some of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations are contrary

to the findings, and some of the defendants were not addressed. Any discrepancies shall be resolved

by this ruling. 

Fourth, Plaintiff argues that it is inconsistent to allow claims for mail interference, but not to

allow claims for retaliation by mail interference. Retaliation and mail interference are two separate

claims, and the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff exhausted his remedies with regard to mail

interference, but not with regard to retaliation by mail interference. Therefore, it is not inconsistent

to allow Plaintiff’s mail interference claims, without allowing his claims for retaliation by mail

interference. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 23,

2010, are ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed on February 19, 2010, is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

3. Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him

indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing

mail, (4) denied him all but the May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal

3

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 03/12/12 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

News, (5) issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff for having a clothesline

inside his cell, and (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a

sixty-minute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him,

are DISMISSED from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies;

4. Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation against defendants Pugliese, Motty, Guerrero,

Meaders, Cuevas, Johnson, and Does 1-5 are DISMISSED from this action for

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies;

5. Defendants Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson are DISMISSED from this action for

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies with regard to the claims against them; and

6. This action now proceeds against defendants Pugliese, Smith, Motty, Guerrero,

Cooper, Garcia, Hall, and Does 1-5 for interfering with Plaintiff’s right to send mail;

and against defendants Sherman, Selvy, Adams, Smith, and Tucker for retaliating

against him by confining him in Ad-Seg under false pretenses and transferring him to

another prison. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 88 Filed 03/12/12 Page 4 of 4