Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01061/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01061-12/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

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff, 2:05-cv-1061-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

KNOWLES, 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 August 15, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties 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. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:05-cv-01061-GEB -JFM Document 43 Filed 09/12/07 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

On August 31, 2007, plaintiff filed a request to postpone consideration of

defendants’ motion to dismiss so that plaintiff may pursue discovery. Plaintiff contends this

discovery would show plaintiff submitted multiple grievances over time all of which were

screened out by prison officials. However, as the magistrate judge noted, plaintiff cannot satisfy

the PLRA exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective

administrative grievance or appeal. Woodford v. Ngo, ____ U.S. ____ (2006). Because plaintiff

was required to exhaust his administrative grievances through the third level review, screened out

grievances would not demonstrate exhaustion. Id. Plaintiff’s request will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 15, 2007, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ July 9, 2007 motion to dismiss is granted and this action is

dismissed without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s August 31, 2007 request to postpone consideration of defendants’ 

motion to dismiss is denied.

Dated: September 12, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01061-GEB -JFM Document 43 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2