Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01159/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01159-6/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

MARLON BLACHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. JOHNSON,

Defendant.

1:12-cv-01159-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF NO. 50)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STRIKE DECLARATIONS PRESENTED 

WITH DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF NO. 55)

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

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties have consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 (ECF Nos. 5 & 26). This case now 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on July 16, 2012 (ECF No. 1), against Chief Deputy 

 

1

As Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin noted (ECF No. 29, p. 1 n. 1), “[o]n July 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a 

form consenting to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 5.) On October 15, 2013, Defendant Johnson filed a 

form consenting to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 26.) Subsequently, on October 30, 2013, Plaintiff 

filed a form declining the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff may not withdraw his consent in this 

manner. Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference can be withdrawn only 

by the district court, and only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown 

by any party.’ Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Fellman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 735 

F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1984)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b). There is no absolute right, in a civil case, to 

withdraw consent to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge. Dixon at 480. Plaintiff has not shown any 

extraordinary circumstances to justify withdrawal of his consent.

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 63 Filed 10/17/16 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

Warden S. Johnson (“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s claim relating to an unclothed body search (ECF 

No. 20). Before the Court now is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50) and 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike declarations presented with Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 55). Because the Ninth Circuit has already ruled on the issue of exhaustion 

in this case, both motions will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Plaintiff failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 24). To support the motion, Defendant attached: 

1) The declaration of J. Lozano; 2) A report dated September 9, 2013, from the “Inmate / Parolee 

Appeals Tracking System – Level III” (Exhibit A); 3) What appears to be a record of an inmate 

grievance process initiated by Plaintiff (Log # CSPC-3-11-01220), including a copy of the Third 

Level Appeal Decision, a copy of Plaintiff’s appeal form, a copy of the Formal Level Appeal 

Response, and a copy of the Second Level Appeal Response (Exhibit B); 4) What appears to be a

second record of an inmate grievance process initiated by Plaintiff (Log # COR-11-02175), 

including a copy of the Third Level Appeal Decision, a copy of Plaintiff’s appeal form, a copy of 

the First Level Response, and a copy of the Second Level Response (Exhibit C); 5) What appears 

to be a third record of an inmate grievance process initiated by Plaintiff (Log # COR-11-02883), 

including a copy of the Third Level Appeal Decision, a copy of Plaintiff’s appeal form, and a 

copy of the First Level Response (Exhibit D); and 6) What appears to be a fourth record of an 

inmate grievance process initiated by Plaintiff (Log # COR-12-00040), including a copy of the 

Third Level Appeal Decision, a copy of Plaintiff’s appeal form, a copy of the First Level 

Response, and a copy of the Second Level Response (Exhibit E).

On October 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss, alleging that 

he did exhaust his administrative remedies (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff submitted evidence to support 

his opposition, including his declaration. (Id.).

On February 26, 2014, the Court2granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 29). 

 

2 Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin was the presiding magistrate judge until June 24, 2016.

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 63 Filed 10/17/16 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 Court noted that, at the motion to dismiss stage, it could look beyond the pleadings and

decide disputed issues of fact (Id. at p. 5 n. 4), and “thoroughly review[ed] the pleadings and 

exhibits” in reaching its decision (Id. at p. 6). 

On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order dismissing the 

case. (ECF No. 33). On June 2, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum 

vacating the order dismissing the case, and remanding the case. 3 (ECF No. 39). The 

memorandum states “[t]herefore, although Blacher did not comply with prison regulations, his 

administrative appeals alleging unreasonable searches and a failure to remedy the problem 

received a response at the third and final level informing him that his administrative remedies 

were exhausted.” (Id. at p. 2).

On August 8, 2016, Defendant filed an answer to the Complaint (ECF No. 49) and a

motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50). On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, specific denials concerning Defendant’s statement of 

undisputed facts, and a motion to strike declarations presented with Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment (ECF Nos. 52-54). On August 26, 2016, Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s 

opposition. (ECF No. 57). On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed another opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 59).

II. DISCUSSION

Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin already considered Defendant’s exhaustion argument. 

(ECF No. 29). This included a thorough review of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff and 

Defendant. (Id. at p. 6). While Magistrate Judge Austin found that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 

(Id.), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, and found that Plaintiff fully exhausted his 

administrative remedies (ECF No. 39, p. 2).

Accordingly, the issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies has 

already been adjudicated. While Defendant states that the case the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals relied on to reach its decision to overrule Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin’s ruling is 

 

3

The judgment did not take effect until June 27, 2016. (ECF No. 45).

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 63 Filed 10/17/16 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

now under review (ECF No. 57, p. 2), it does not appear that the case has been overruled at this 

time. Additionally, if Defendant wanted to continue to litigate the issue of exhaustion in this case 

he should have done so at the appellate level. This Court must follow the order of the Appellate 

Court. 

Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be denied. Because the Court 

is denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s motion to strike declarations 

presented with Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be denied as moot.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 

50) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike declarations presented with 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01159-EPG Document 63 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 4