Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01186/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01186-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Doerer
Defendant
Kayce White
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

KAYCE WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOERER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01186 JLT CDB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE THIS CASE 

(Doc. 9)

Kayce is a federal prisoner and seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights 

violations, based upon the conditions of lockdown that occurred at the United States PenitentiaryAtwater from August 9 to October 9, 2024. (See generally Doc. 4.) The magistrate judge ordered 

Plaintiff to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies (Doc. 7), and Plaintiff failed to respond to the order. 

The magistrate judge found it was “clear on the face of the complaint that Plaintiff has 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required under the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act.” (Doc. 9 at 2.) Although Plaintiff asserted that he was unable to access 

grievance forms, the magistrate judge found “no allegations to suggest this was anything other 

than a temporary unavailability.” (Id. at 3.) In addition, Plaintiff did not allege “any efforts by 

him to exhaust administrative remedies after the lockdown ended where thwarted.” (Id., 

emphasis omitted.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss “this action 

Case 1:24-cv-01186-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/13/25 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

without prejudice to Plaintiff’s re-filing once his claims are exhausted.” (Id. at 4.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 9 at 5.) The Court advised him that the “failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and 

the time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 20, 2024 (Doc. 9) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-01186-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 2