Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01026/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01026-2/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

JORGE ARMANDO DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01026-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

(Docs. 1 and 7)

Plaintiff Jorge Armando Diaz (“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 March 5, 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. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and

Recommendations on April 16, 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.

Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005), cited to by plaintiff in support of his

argument that the rejection of his appeal as untimely exhausted the process, is no longer good law.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, and the filing

of an untimely inmate appeal no longer satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Woodford v. Ngo, 126

Case 1:06-cv-01026-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 04/30/07 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

2

S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006). Because plaintiff’s appeal was screened out as untimely, plaintiff failed

to exhaust and this action must be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 5, 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 claims prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01026-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2