Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01618/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01618-11/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BRADLEY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

L. VILLA, 

 Defendant.

1:10-cv-01618 LJO GSA PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT DEFENDANT‟S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDMGMENT BE GRANTED 

AND THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST AVAILABLE 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(ECF No. 62)

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 302. Pending before the Court is Defendant‟s motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff has opposed the motion. 

I. Procedural History.

This action was initiated by civil complaint alleging excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff, currently in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at CSP Corcoran, filed this action, naming as 

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 11
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

defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) L. Villa, Sergeant J. Hightower, Lieutenant Henderson, 

Capt. L. Wood. The event that gives rise to his lawsuit occurred at Kern Valley State Prison.

Plaintiff alleges that on February 18, 2010, as he was walking toward the plaza gate to 

an appointment, C/O Villa stopped him and told him to tuck his shirt into his pants. Plaintiff 

told Villa that he could not comply with his order because of a spinal brace. Plaintiff lifted up 

his shirt to show Villa the brace. Villa ordered ordered Plaintiff to “cuff up.” Plaintiff asked 

to speak to the Sergeant. Plaintiff told Villa that he had a waist chain chrono. 

As Plaintiff attempted to retrieve the chrono from a manila folder, Villa “grabbed 

Plaintiff‟s right arm „aggressively,‟ Plaintiff then stated „I have a medical chrono to substantiate 

my waist chain chrono . . .” Villa grabbed Plaintiff‟s right arm and yanked down. As a result 

of these actions, Plaintiff fell down and split his lip, struck the left side of his jaw (against the 

concrete), suffered deep abrasions to his right hand, severe spinal pain in his lower region and 

deep cuts to his knee and right leg.

Plaintiff alleges that while he was on the ground and offering no resistance, he was hit 

“three times about the head” by J. Lopez, while Sgt. Hightower, Capt. Wood and Lt. Henderson 

watched. Plaintiff yelled for help, and for medical care “for being stabbed in the back area with 

cuffs, causing extreme spinal spasms and pains and discomforts.” Plaintiff alleges that as a 

result, he suffered “strained ligaments, and soft tissue damage, active bleeding on lip & jaw 

area, abrasion & scratches, and spinal and back pain.” 

Plaintiff amended his complaint twice, and on April 16, 2013, the Court ordered that the 

third amended complaint stated a claim against Defendants Villa, Wood, Hightower and 

Henderson. On October 11, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available 

administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and for failure to state a claim 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). On May 29, 2104, an order was entered by the District Court, 

denying the Rule 12(b) motion on procedural grounds, without prejudice to renewal. The 

District Court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part, with leave to amend. Plaintiff was 

given the option of either filing a fourth amended complaint that cured the deficiencies 

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 11
3

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

identified in the finding and recommendation, or notify the Court that he did not wish to file an 

amended complaint and intended to proceed only on the excessive force claim against 

Defendant Villa. On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court that he was willing to proceed 

against Defendant Villa. On December 3, 2014, Defendant Villa filed the motion for summary 

judgment that is before the Court.1 On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed opposition to the 

motion. Defendant filed his reply on January 6, 2015.

III Summary Judgment

The failure to exhaust in compliance with section 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense 

under which Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. 

Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). On April 3, 

2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision overruling 

Wyatt with respect to the proper procedural device for raising the affirmative defense of 

exhaustion under § 1997e(a). Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168–69 (9th Cir. 2014) (en 

banc). Following the decision in Albino, defendants may raise exhaustion deficiencies as an 

affirmative defense under § 1997e(a) in either (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6)2or (2) a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Id. If the Court concludes that 

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice of the portions 

of the complaint barred by § 1997e(e). Jones, 549 U.S. at 223–24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 

1164, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2005).

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there “is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(a); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (“If there is a genuine dispute about material facts, 

summary judgment will not be granted.”) A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must 

support the assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including 

depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, 

 

1 Along with his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff was served with the notice required in 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998)(en banc). (ECF No. 62.)

2 Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are only appropriate “[i]n the rare event a failure to exhaust is 

clear on the face of the complaint.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1162.

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 3 of 11
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

stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory 

answers, or other materials, or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or 

presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to 

support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The Court may consider other materials in the 

record not cited to by the parties, but is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen 

v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. 

Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). In judging the evidence at the 

summary judgment stage, the Court “must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party.” Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of 

Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court must liberally construe 

Plaintiff's filings because he is a pro se prisoner. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

In a summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the 

defendants have the initial burden to prove “that there was an available administrative remedy, 

and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. If the 

defendants carry that burden, “the burden shifts to the prisoner to come forward with evidence 

showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally 

available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. The ultimate burden of 

proof remains with defendants, however. Id. “If material facts are disputed, summary 

judgment should be denied, and the district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts.” 

Id. at 1166.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the State of California provides its 

prisoners and parolees the right to appeal administratively “any policy, decision, action, 

condition, or omission by the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate 

as having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal.Code Regs. 

tit. 15 § 3084.1(a). The process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602. Id. at '

3084.2(a). 

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 4 of 11
5

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

At the time of the events giving rise to the present action, California prisoners were 

required to submit appeals within fifteen working days of the event being appealed, and the 

process was initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some 

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at '' 3084.5, 3084.6(c) (2009). Four levels of appeal 

were involved, including the informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third 

formal level. Id. at ' 3084.5 (2009). A final decision at the third level3of review satisfies the 

exhaustion requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Id. at § 3084.5(d); see Lira v. Herrera,

427 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005). In order to satisfy ' 1997e(a), California state prisoners 

are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 

548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d. at 1199-1201.

Defendant supports his motion with the declaration of D. Tarnoff and exhibits attached 

thereto, and exhibits attached to Plaintiff‟s third amended complaint. Defendant also submits 

the declaration of R. Briggs of the Office of Appeals in Sacramento, and exhibits attached 

thereto. Defendant also refers to Plaintiff‟s separate statement of undisputed facts. D. Tarnoff 

is assigned as the Appeals Coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison, and is responsible for 

ensuring that all appeals are processed pursuant to title 15 of the California Code of 

Regulations. Regarding the processing of inmate appeals at Kern Valley and Plaintiff‟s appeals 

in particular, Tarnoff declares the following:

Staff in the KVSP Appeals Office have discretion to manage, 

screen and assign inmate appeals according to the regulations. 

Staff review the inmate appeals for compliance with the 

regulations.

a. If a requirement is not met, the appeal may be rejected 

and returned to the inmate with instructions on how to 

correct the procedural issue and resubmit the appeal. A 

rejected appeal may later be accepted if the reason for the 

rejection is corrected and the appeal is returned within 

thirty days.

b. A deficient appeal that cannot be corrected may be 

cancelled. Although cancellation terminates the appeal, a 

cancellation decision can be challenged through a 

 

3 The third level is sometimes known as the Director‟s level.

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 5 of 11
6

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

separate appeal. And, a cancelled appeal may later be 

accepted for processing if it is determined that staff 

cancelled the appeal in error.

When an inmate appeal meets the regulations, staff assigns it for 

processing at the institution. The institution provides the first and 

second level appeal responses, while the Office of Appeals in 

Sacramento provides the third, and final level of review. If an

inmate is dissatisfied with an appeal response at one level, he 

may submit his appeal to the next level of review. An inmate 

may not bypass a level of review. 

It is the inmate‟s responsibility to mail an appeal to the Office of 

Appeals in Sacramento. The third-level response completes the 

administrative appeals process and exhausts an inmate‟s available 

administrative remedies. A cancellation or rejection at the third 

level does not exhaust an inmate‟s administrative remedies 

because it is not a decision on the merits of the claim.

KVSP‟s Appeals Office‟s records are prepared and maintained by 

prison staff in the ordinary course of their business. It is staff‟s 

regular practice to prepare records concerning appeals and 

responses, and put appeal responses in writing. KVSP‟s Appeals 

Office‟s records are prepared at or near the time of the events 

described in the records, and are prepared by staff based on their 

personal knowledge from processing the appeals. Staff are 

responsible for ensuring that these records are accurate because 

they will be relied upon by other staff at the institution and the 

Office of Appeals. 

The completed date shown on the appeals tracking system 

printout is the date on which staff return the response to the 

inmate. It is KVSP‟s Appeal Office Staff‟s usual custom and 

practice to return responses to inmates via institution mail. On 

average, once a response is completed and placed in the 

institution mail, an inmate will receive it in one day. Staff do not 

otherwise track when an inmate receives his appeal response 

back from staff.

I have reviewed KVSP‟s Appeals Office‟s records to locate any 

inmate appeals received from William Bradley (E-48180), 

relating to his claim that Defendant Villa used excessive force on 

him on February 18, 2010, and I found two appeals.

A true and correct copy of the KVSP Inmate/Parolee Appeals 

Tracking System printout for Bradley is attached as Exhibit A, 

and shows all of the appeals that Bradley submitted to the 

KVSP‟s Appeals Office, and also documents the issued 

responses. 

Bradley‟s first appeal regarding Defendant Villa was assigned log 

number KVSP-0-10-00662, and was processed at the second 

level as a staff complaint. The second level response was issued 

on May 3, 2010. The appeal was completed and returned to 

Bradley on May 4, 2010. 

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 6 of 11
7

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

a. The reviewer found that a confidential inquiry into 

Bradley‟s allegation was conducted and staff did not 

violate Department policy.

b. My office does not process third-level appeals, but 

receives copies of the completed third-level responses for 

tracking purposes. This appeal did not receive a thirdlevel response.

c. Bradley did not submit a new appeal alleging that his 

claim was wrongfully cancelled at the third level.

Bradley‟s second appeal regarding Defendant Villa, long number 

KVSP-0-10-00749, was screened out at the first level on April 

27, 2010, because it was a duplicate of the previous appeal, 

KVSP-0-10-00662, which was pending a decision from staff.

(Tarnoff Decl., ¶¶ 8-16.) 

R. Briggs, a Correctional Captain at the Office of Appeals, is responsible for processing 

inmate appeals at the third, and final level of review. Regarding that appeals process and 

Plaintiff‟s appeal in particular, Briggs declares as follows:

When an inmate appeal meets the regulations, staff assigns it to 

be answered at the institution. The institution provides the first 

and second level appeal responses for non-medical appeals, while 

the Office of Appeals in Sacramento provides the third, and final, 

level of review for non-medical appeals. If an inmate is 

dissatisfied with an appeal response at one level, he may submit 

his appeal to the next level of review. An inmate may not bypass 

a level of review, although some appeals bypass the first level of 

review.

It is the inmate‟s responsibility to mail an appeal to the Office of 

Appeals in Sacramento. The third-level response completes the 

administrative appeals process and exhausts an inmate‟s available 

administrative remedies. A cancellation or rejection at the third 

level does not exhaust an inmate‟s administrative remedies 

because it is not a decision on the merits of the claim. 

The Office of Appeals‟ records are prepared and maintained by 

staff in the ordinary course of their business. It is staff‟s regular 

practice to prepare records concerning appeals and responses, and 

to write appeal responses. The Office of Appeals‟ records are 

prepared at or near the time of the events described in the 

records, and are prepared by staff based on their personal 

knowledge from processing the appeals. Staff are responsible for 

ensuring that these records are accurate because they will be 

relied upon by other Department staff.

I have reviewed the Office of Appeals‟ records to locate any 

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 7 of 11
8

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

inmate appeals received from William Bradly (E-48180), relating 

to his claim that Defendant Villa used excessive force on him on 

February 18, 2010, at Kern Valley State Prison. The Office of 

Appeals has not accepted any appeals from Bradley originating 

from Kern Valley State Prison, but has screened out and returned 

two appeals to him.

A true and correct copy of the Office of Appeal‟s Inmate/Parolee 

Appeals Tracking System printout for Bradley is attached as 

Exhibit A, and shows all of the appeals that Bradley submitted to 

the Office of Appeals, and what responses were issued. 

Bradley‟s first appeal regarding Defendant Villa, log number 

KVSP-10-00662, was cancelled on August 20, 2010, because it 

failed to meet the required time constraints. Villa did not submit 

the appeal to the third level within fifteen days of the event or 

decision being appealed, or of receiving a lower level decision.

It is the Office of Appeals‟ usual and customary practice to 

instruct an inmate in his cancellation notice that he can appeal the 

cancellation decision, and if the appeal on the cancellation is 

granted, he can resubmit his original appeal. At the time Bradley 

submitted his appeal, the Office of Appeals did not retain official 

copies of screen out letters. Records show, however, that 

Bradley did not choose to appeal the cancellation of this appeal. 

Bradley‟s second appeal regarding Defendant Villa, log number 

KVSP-10-00749, was rejected on June 21, 2010, because it was 

not processed at the institution before being submitted to the 

Office of Appeals. 

(Briggs Decl., ¶¶ 8-14.)

Defendant‟s evidence establishes that at the institutional level, Plaintiff‟s appeal no. 

KVSP-10-0062 was denied at the second level, and appeal no. KVSP-10-00749 was screened 

out as a duplicate. (Tarnoff Decl., ¶¶ 15-16). Defendant‟s evidence also establishes that at the 

Office of Appeals, Plaintiff‟s appeal no. KVSP-10-0062 was cancelled for failure to meet time 

constraints, and appeal no. KVSP-10-00749 was rejected for bypassing the institutional level of 

responses. (Briggs. Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.) The evidence establishes, therefore, that there is no 

material factual dispute over whether Plaintiff exhausted his available administrative remedies 

because he did not complete all of the available levels of review. “Proper exhaustion 

demands compliance with an agency‟s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . .” 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 89 (2006), and may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or 

otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal,” Id. at 2382. The burden therefore shifts to 

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 8 of 11
9

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

Plaintiff to come forward with evidence that establishes a triable issue of fact as to whether he 

exhausted his available administrative remedies. 

In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has attempted to “hood-wink” Plaintiff 

by “submitting documentation within their motion for summary judgment but deliberately 

failed to add relevant documents which would „not‟ add merit to their motion but would 

substantiate plaintiff‟s motion for summary judgment.” (Opp‟n. at 6:1-5.) Plaintiff refers to his 

Exhibit H, a copy of a response from the Inmate Appeals Branch regarding appeal no. KVSP10-00662, indicating that his appeal was cancelled for non-compliance with time constraints. 

Specifically, the response advises Plaintiff that “an appellant must submit the appeal within 15 

working days of the event or decision being appealed, or of receiving a lower level decision in 

accordance with CCR 3084.6(c).” The response is dated August 20, 2010. Plaintiff also refers 

to his Exhibit F, a copy of a response from the Inmate Appeals Branch regarding appeal no. 

KVSP-10-00749, which indicates that “The Inmate Appeals Branch has received an appeal 

from you which has been rejected for the following reason(s): The CDC 602, Inmate/Parolee 

Appeal Form, must have been accepted and completed through the Second Level of Review on 

behalf of the Warden or Parole Region Administrator.” 

Plaintiff argues that an administrative remedy is inadequate where prison officials 

“ignore or interfere with prisoner‟s pursuit of relief.” Plaintiff refers the Court to legal 

authority for his proposition. The Court need not address the merits of Plaintiff‟s legal 

argument because Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any evidence that correctional 

officials in any way hindered Plaintiff‟s efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Plaintiff‟s Exhibits F and H establish that Plaintiff‟s grievances were rejected for failure to 

comply with time constraints and failure to follow proper procedure. Plaintiff‟s own exhibits 

establish that his grievance was not responded to on the merits. Plaintiff refers the Court to his 

Exhibits A through H, “which solidifies plaintiff‟s motion for summary judgment.” 

Exhibit A is a copy of a handwritten letter from Plaintiff to the “Appeals Supervisor” 

and dated March 22, 2010, indicating that he filed his appeal and has not received a response 

and has not received a log number. Exhibit A also includes a copy of an Inmate Appeal 

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 9 of 11
10

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

Assignment Notice, indicating that Plaintiff‟s appeal regarding “staff complaints” has been 

assigned log no. KVSP-10-00662, and has been sent for a second level response. Plaintiff was 

specifically advised that “if dissatisfied, you have 15 days from the receipt of the response to 

forward your appeal for THIRD level review.” Plaintiff was provided with the mailing address 

for the Chief of Inmate Appeals. The notice is dated April 5, 2010. Exhibit A also includes an 

identical notice regarding appeal no. KVSP-10-00749, dated April 15, 2010. Plaintiff‟s Exhibit 

C is a copy of the screen-out of Plaintiff‟s second appeal, log no. KVSP-10-00749, establishing 

that Plaintiff “submitted an appeal that duplicates a previous appeal upon which a decision has 

been rendered or is pending (CCR 3084.3(c)(2)). Exhibit B is an unauthenticated, handwritten 

notice from Plaintiff to the Appeals Office indicating that he had not received a second level 

response for grievance no. KVSP-10-00662. Plaintiff‟s Exhibit G is a copy of the response to 

grievance no. KVSP-10-00662 as the institutional level, dated May 3, 2010. The grievance was 

denied and Plaintiff was specifically informed that “if you wish to appeal the decision, you 

must submit your staff complaint appeal through all levels of appeal review up to, and 

including, the Director‟s Level of Review. Once a decision has been rendered at the Director‟s 

Level of review, your administrative remedies will be considered exhausted.” Plaintiff‟s 

Exhibit H, as noted above, establishes that Plaintiff failed to timely file his appeal at the 

Director‟s Level of Review. 

Plaintiff also argues generally that the CDCR does not allow prisoners to exhaust their 

appeals. Defendant correctly argues that this claim is contradicted by Plaintiff‟s administrative 

appeals tracking history, which shows an extensive history of utilizing the appeals process and 

receiving third level responses. (Briggs Decl., Ex. 6.) Plaintiff‟s argument that his appeals 

were disregarded or not responded to is belied by the undisputed evidence. Plaintiff received 

two letters from the Office of Appeals, which advised him of the status of his appeals. (Briggs 

Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, Ex. 6.) 

IV. Conclusion

Defendant has come forward with evidence that establishes, without dispute, that 

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff 

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 10 of 11
11

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

has not come forward with evidence to the contrary. Plaintiff‟s evidence establishes that his 

grievances were dismissed as untimely and duplicative. Plaintiff has not, therefore, exhausted 

his available administrative remedies.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant‟s motion for 

summary judgment be granted, and this action be dismissed for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

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)(1)(B). Within twenty 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 

772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1394(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 06/03/15 Page 11 of 11