Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01287/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01287-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry A. Burton
Plaintiff
A. Scribner
Defendant

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

JERRY A. BURTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. SCRIBNER,

Defendant. 

 /

1:05-cv-01287-LJO-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 17)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION

ORDER DENYING ALL PENDING

MOTIONS AS MOOT (Docs. 23, 24-

1-3.) 

Jerry A. Burton (“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 December 21, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On January 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend

time. On February 15, 2007, the court granted Plaintiff an

additional thirty (30) days within which to respond. On March

Case 1:05-cv-01287-LJO -SMS Document 26 Filed 04/06/07 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

19, 2007, Plaintiff filed Objectiloneillons to the Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, a Motion for leave to file

an Amended Complaint, Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motions for

Preliminary or Injunctive Relief. 

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 and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Although

Plaintiff seeks to Amend his Complaint to add names of several

Defendants, he has not demonstrated that he exhausted his

administrative remedies prior to initiating this action. As

indicated in the Findings and Recommendations, the documentation

submitted by Plaintiff and his explanation all demonstrate that

Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to

initiating this action. Exhaustion must occur prior to filing

suit and a plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 21,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety; and 

3. All pending Motions are DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01287-LJO -SMS Document 26 Filed 04/06/07 Page 2 of 2