Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01240/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01240-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESLEY MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-1240 JAM GGH P

vs.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On March 2, 2012, defendant Miranda filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on the grounds that plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his

claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. Docket # 29. Also on March 2, 2012, defendants

Clark, Davey, Gower, McDonald, Sanders and Van Leer filed a separate motion to dismiss,

pursuant to non-enumerated Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies prior to filing this action in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Docket # 30. On March 28, 2012, defendant Miranda joined the motion of defendants Clark, 

Davey, Gower, McDonald, Sanders and Van Leer, alleging a failure by plaintiff to exhaust

administrative remedies. Docket # 36. Plaintiff has not opposed the motions. 

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

1

Case 2:11-cv-01240-JAM-AC Document 37 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 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

the granting of the motion . . . .” On November 22, 2011, plaintiff was advised of the

requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a

motion timely may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. Plaintiff was also

specifically provided with notice, pursuant Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir.

2003), of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, pursuant to non-enumerated Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), and cautioned that failure to oppose

the motion may be considered by the court as a waiver of opposition to the motion and, in any

event, whether opposed or not, unexhausted claims would be dismissed without prejudice. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the granting of the motion. In the alternative, the court has reviewed the motions

and find that they have merit. Specifically, defendant Miranda’s unopposed motion to dismiss

the Eighth Amendment claim of inadequate medical care against him should be granted, and

defendants have produced exhibits and supporting declarations sufficient to demonstrate that

plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the claims at issue, i.e., 

his claims of inadequate medical care, of due process violations in being subjected to

administrative segregation and atypically difficult conditions therein, of deprivation of outdoor

exercise and of his right to participate in religious activity to which plaintiff provides no

opposition to dispute their showing. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Miranda’s March 2, 2012 (docket # 29), motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim be granted, and defendants’ March 2, 2012 (docket # 30), motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in which defendant Miranda joined (docket

# 36), be granted as well; and

2. This case be closed.

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

2

Case 2:11-cv-01240-JAM-AC Document 37 Filed 05/24/12 Page 2 of 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

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 reply to the objections

shall be served and filed 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: May 24, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:009

mitc1240.46

3

Case 2:11-cv-01240-JAM-AC Document 37 Filed 05/24/12 Page 3 of 3