Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105-19/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANARD KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORDSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-0105-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND ENTER SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ON THE 

ISSUE OF EXHAUSTION (ECF No. 83)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 10.) This matter

proceeds against Defendant Tordsen on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, 

and against Defendants Tordsen, Coker, Leach and Day on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment claim for subjecting Plaintiff to conditions of confinement that amounted to 

punishment. (ECF No. 28.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California.

On April 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and enter summary judgment for 

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 84 Filed 05/21/15 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

Plaintiff on the grounds that the undisputed facts showed that Plaintiff was excused from 

exhausting his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 83.) However, Plaintiff does not seek 

summary judgment or adjudication and this Court will not grant Plaintiff summary 

judgment sua sponte. (See ECF No. 79 at 9.) Moreover, exhaustion of administrative 

remedies is an affirmative defense, not an element of any of Plaintiff’s causes of action

(Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (2014)); 

denying summary judgment to Defendants as to their failure to exhaust defense is 

dispositive of that issue.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds that the April 14, 2015 Findings and Recommendations – with the 

modification noted above – to be supported by record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 83), filed April 

14, 2015, in part;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 77), filed February 13, 

2015 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 84 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2