Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02683/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02683-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL WHITNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2683 DFL PAN P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On January 24, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court agrees with the findings and recommendations that plaintiff has failed to exhaust

administrative remedies. However, the court’s reasoning is somewhat different from that of the

Case 2:04-cv-02683-DFL-PAN Document 22 Filed 03/08/06 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

2

magistrate judge. The magistrate judge relies on plaintiff’s refusal to submit to a videotaped

interview. Although the facts are somewhat unclear, plaintiff now states that he was prepared to

submit to an audiotaped interview. It is unclear whether he communicated this willingness to

prison officials. Assuming that he did, the court is not prepared to hold, on the limited record

before it, that an inmate, who claims that he (1) has been raped, (2) is too distraught to

participate in a videotaped interview, but (3) will participate in an audiotaped interview, thereby

fails to exhaust available administrative remedies. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that plaintiff

declined to appear for two scheduled interviews with T. Hansen as part of the administrative

process. There was no issue as to videotaping with respect to these interviews. Plaintiff now

says that he is willing to be interviewed at the Director’s Level. But it is not for the plaintiff to

pick and choose when, at what level and by whom he will be interviewed during the grievance

process. The court further agrees with the magistrate judge that the administrative process

remains open to plaintiff should he wish to pursue it.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 24, 2006, are adopted to the

extent indicated above; and

2. Defendants’ July 15, 2005, motion to dismiss is granted and this action is

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

DATED: 3/7/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02683-DFL-PAN Document 22 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2