Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02083/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02083-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY TODD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

P. JOHNSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-02083-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 88)

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

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 of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

On March 17, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 

to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to require an evidentiary hearing 

to resolve factual disputes concerning exhaustion. (ECF No. 88.) Defendants filed no 

objections. Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that an evidentiary hearing be held. 

(ECF No. 89.) Defendants filed no reply.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 

Case 1:12-cv-02083-LJO-SKO Document 90 Filed 04/13/15 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

27

28

2

proper analysis. Defendants are entitled to have disputed factual questions relating to 

exhaustion resolved through a preliminary proceeding. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 

1169-71 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff’s objections do not raise an issue of fact or law under 

the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations, filed on March 17, 

2015 (ECF No. 88), in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 70), filed July 3, 

2014, is DENIED;

3. The Court REFERS the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further 

proceedings on the exhaustion issue; and 

4. The case shall remain open for resolution of the exhaustion issue and, if 

necessary, further proceedings on Plaintiff’s claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5.

Case 1:12-cv-02083-LJO-SKO Document 90 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 2