Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01464-6/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

MICHAEL STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CALDERON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01464-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 12) 

Plaintiff Michael Stewart (“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 April 12, 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. After obtaining two extensions of time,

plaintiff filed an Objection on August 31, 2007.

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 andRecommendationsto be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

The incident of excessive force giving rise to plaintiff’s claim occurred on September 29,

2005, at the California Correctional Facility (“CCI”). (Doc. 18, pg. 4.) Plaintiff was required to file

an inmate appeal within fifteen working days. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.5 (2007). Plaintiff

was transferred from CCI to California State Prison-Calipatria on October 6, 2005, and did not

Case 1:06-cv-01464-AWI-LJO Document 19 Filed 09/20/07 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

 Although plaintiff asserts he filed an appeal on November 11, 2005, the appeal signed and dated by 1

plaintiff bears the date November 17, 2005. (Doc. 18, pg. 9.) Regardless, the appeal was filed more than fifteen

working days after the incident being appealed.

2

initiate his appeal until November 17, 2005. (Doc. 18, pg. 4.) Plaintiff’s argument that he was in 1

transit until from September 28, 2005, until December 2005, and needed documentation is

unavailing. The regulation unequivocallyrequires that appeals be filed within fifteen working days,

and plaintiff is required to comply with the regulation. When an inmate does not comply with the

applicable procedural requirements and his appeal is subsequently rejected as untimely, the

exhaustion requirement is not satisfied. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 12, 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 his claim prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01464-AWI-LJO Document 19 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 2