Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01624-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 The hearing date was later changed to November 28, 2007. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DANIEL PERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01624-LJO-DLB-PC

ORDER VACATING TELEPHONIC

CONFIRMATION HEARING AND

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

ORDER REINSTATING AND ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff Robert Daniel Perry (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 29, 2006, defendants

filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On August

20, 2007, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations which recommended that the

motion be denied because a factual dispute existed concerning whether plaintiff attempted to file

appeal forms and whether the forms were intercepted by prison officials. 

On August 22, 2007, defendants filed objections requesting that the motion be granted, or

in the alternative, that an evidentiary hearing be held to resolve the factual dispute. On August 30,

2007, the Court issued an Order vacating the Findings and Recommendations and setting an

Evidentiary Hearing for November 30, 2007. The Court also set a Telephonic Hearing 1

Confirmation for November 8, 2007. Plaintiff was ordered to file a prehearing statement on or

before October 15, 2007 and defendants were ordered to file a prehearing statement on or before

November 2, 2007. The prehearing statements were to address the parties’ positions regarding

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 86 Filed 11/08/07 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

27

28

2

whether or not plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies including their positions regarding

the standard of proof. The parties have failed to file prehearing statements as ordered and plaintiff

has failed to file any motions for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses. Based on the parties’

failure to follow the Court’s Orders regarding the Evidentiary Hearing, the Court assumes the parties

are prepared to resolve the issue of plaintiff’s exhaustion of administrative remedies on the prior

pleadings.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

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

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations filed August 20, 2007, to be supported by the record

and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations issued on August 20, 2007

are reinstated;

2. The telephonic evidentiary confirmation hearing on November 8, 2007, at 8:30 a.m.

is VACATED;

3. The evidentiary hearing on November 28, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. is VACATED;

4. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 20, 2007, are adopted in full; 

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed December 29, 2006, is

DENIED; and

6. Defendants are ordered to respond to plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 86 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 2