Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00905/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00905-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GARY ORTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL LUDLOW, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0905 JAM CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 

2016, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies because the inmate grievance process concerning the complained-of 

issue was not complete as of the filing of the complaint. (ECF No. 5.) On June 14, 2016, the 

undersigned partially vacated its findings and recommendations to grant plaintiff leave to amend 

to explain, if applicable, why the exhaustion requirement should be excused in this case. (ECF 

No. 10.) Leave to amend was also granted to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. (Id.) 

Plaintiff was advised that failure to amend within thirty days would result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed. (Id.) 

The thirty day period has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 

Rather, plaintiff has notified the court that the administrative grievance process for the medical 

issue that is the subject of the complaint was completed on June 16, 2016. (ECF Nos. 11 & 12.) 

Case 2:16-cv-00905-JAM-CKD Document 13 Filed 07/26/16 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

However, as explained in the May 9, 2016 screening order, because plaintiff brought suit against 

defendants on April 29, 2016, he was required to have completed the administrative grievance 

process as to his claims by that date. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(“a prisoner does not comply with [the exhaustion] requirement by exhausting available remedies 

during the course of the litigation.”). Thus this action should be dismissed without prejudice to 

re-filing a new action with exhausted claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action is dismissed without 

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 26, 2016

2/orta0905.fta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00905-JAM-CKD Document 13 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2