Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01084/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01084-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYCHAEL TYRONE SHANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 86, 89)

Plaintiff Mychael Tyrone Shannon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action brought 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 302.

On November 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint (“TAC”) (Doc. No. 86) be denied. (Doc. No. 89.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 

found that defendants had not shown that it was reasonably clear that their challenged practice of 

“permitting female inmates to purchase and own alarm clocks while denying male inmates that 

opportunity” would not be employed once again under the applicable regulations. (Id. at 5.) 

From this, the magistrate judge concluded that defendants had not voluntarily ceased the 

challenged practice and that plaintiff’s TAC was not rendered moot by defendants’ actions. (Id. 

Case 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC Document 90 Filed 01/14/25 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

at 6.) The magistrate judge further found that it was not clear on the face of the complaint that 

plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies and that, therefore, plaintiff’s TAC should 

not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Id. at 7); see Albino v. Baca, 747 

F.3d 1162, 1169–71 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an 

affirmative defense).

The findings and recommendations were served upon the parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 8.) To date, 

no party has filed objections and the time in which to do so has passed.

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

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 13, 2024 (Doc. No. 89) 

are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Doc. No. 86) 

is denied;

3. Defendants shall file an answer responding to the claims in plaintiff’s third 

amended complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of entry of 

this order; and

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-01084-DAD-DMC Document 90 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 2