Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01792/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01792-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Gonzales
Plaintiff
Rodriguez
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

MICHAEL GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01792-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING

SUIT

(Doc. 14)

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales (“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 April 11, 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. After obtaining an extension of time, plaintiff

filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on June 19, 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.

In his Objection, plaintiff contends that he filed suit on February 12, 2007, and exhaustion

occurred on February 2, 2007. Plaintiff also arguesthat the Director’s Level response was untimely,

as were responses at other levels.

///

Case 1:06-cv-01792-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 06/21/07 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

 February 12, 2007, is the date plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. In

1

this court, actions are filed when received and not when ifp status is later granted. Even if this were not the case, “an

action is ‘brought’ for purposes of § 1997e(a) when the complaint is tendered to the district [court] . . . .” Vaden v.

Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 400 (7th Cir. 2004)). 

2

Plaintiff filed this action on December 11, 2006, not February 12, 2007. (Doc. 1.) 1

Regardless of whether an untimely response from the Director’s Level would constitute exhaustion,

plaintiff submitted his appeal to the Director’s Level for consideration on November 13, 2006, and

the time for a response had not expired when plaintiff opted to file this suit prematurely on

December 11, 2006. In any event, plaintiff’s assertion that the response of February 2, 2007, was

late is without merit. Director’s Level responses are to be completed within sixty working days, and

the time limit commences upon receipt of the appeal by the appeals coordinator. Cal. Code Regs.,

tit. 15 §§ 3084.6 (a), (b)(4) (West 2007). Weekends and state holidays do not constitute working

days. Tit. 15 § 4003(j)(2). It is unclear what date plaintiff’s appeal was received by the appeals

coordinator, but even if it was received the next day, on November 14, 2006, the response was timely

under the regulations. Dismissal of this action is required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 11, 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 claim prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01792-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 2