Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01346/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01346-5/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

BRANDY LEE ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. QUESADA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01346-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING

SUIT

(Doc. 14)

Plaintiff Brandy Lee Estrada (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action 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 72-302.

On February 1, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection on

March 1, 2007.

In her Objection, plaintiff contends that she exhausted the appeals process on February 8,

2007. Plaintiff filed this action on September 26, 2006. “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the

PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, Nos. 05-7058, 05-

7142, 2007 WL 135890, *8 (Jan. 22, 2007) (citing Porter, 435 U.S. at 524) (emphasis added).

Because plaintiff filed suit before exhausting, this action must be dismissed. Id.; McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01346-OWW -LJO Document 17 Filed 03/08/07 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

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 andRecommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 1, 2007, is adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply

with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting her claim prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01346-OWW -LJO Document 17 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2