Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00360/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00360-8/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C/O CALLISON, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-0360 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed three documents in response to the undersigned’s Findings and 

Recommendations filed February 12, 2015, which recommend dismissal of this action for failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies. See ECF No. 37. Plaintiff was accorded twenty-one days to 

file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. In response, plaintiff has filed a motion for 

a thirty-day extension of time to file and serve his objections, ECF No. 38; a motion to stay this 

action for thirty days, ECF No. 39; and a proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC), ECF No. 

40, which mirrors the operative complaint, ECF No. 1. Despite these multiple filings, plaintiff 

asserts that he requires additional time to file objections because he is in administrative 

segregation without access to legal materials for the next thirty days. 

 The undersigned previously found that this action “is one of those rare cases in which 

dismissal for non-exhaustion is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6),” based on plaintiff’s concession 

on the face of his complaint that he did not exhaust available administrative remedies. See ECF 

Case 2:13-cv-00360-KJM-AC Document 41 Filed 03/03/15 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

No. 37 at 4 (citing Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014)). The court rejected 

plaintiff’s contention that claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are exempt 

from the requirement of administrative exhaustion. Moreover, the court clarified that plaintiff’s 

claims were not grounded in the ADA but in the First and Eighth Amendments to the United 

States Constitution. ECF No. 37 at 4. Nevertheless, plaintiff again asserts in his proposed FAC 

that his claims are premised on the ADA and exempt from administrative exhaustion. Plaintiff’s 

argument demonstrates the futility of further amendment and/or further time to file objections to 

the court’s Findings and Recommendations. The undersigned finds that further briefing in this 

action would be futile, and therefore construes plaintiff’s current filings as his objections to the 

court’s Findings and Recommendations. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 38) is denied; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action (ECF No. 39) is denied; 

 3. Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40) is disregarded; and 

 4. Plaintiff’s recent filings, ECF Nos. 38-40, are construed as plaintiff’s objections to the 

court’s Findings and Recommendations filed February 12, 2015. 

DATED: March 2, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-00360-KJM-AC Document 41 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 2