Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01370/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01370-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
Francis W. Davis
Plaintiff
Peterson
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

FRANCIS W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER PETERSON,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01370-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING

SUIT

(Docs. 1 and 10)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

RETURN PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Francis W. Davis (“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 May 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings

and Recommendations on May 26, 2006.

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 bythe record and by proper analysis.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01370-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 07/24/06 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

 Director’s Level decisions are due sixty working days after receipt of the appeal by the appeals 1

coordinator. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.6(b)(4). Although it is not clear when the appeal was received by the

coordinator, plaintiff submitted it on August 21, 2005, and sixty working days from August 21 had not yet passed

when plaintiff filed suit on October 31, 2005. Thus, regardless of whether or not the response was ultimately late, as

plaintiff contends, the response was not overdue when plaintiff filed suit and does not excuse plaintiff’s decision to

file suit when he did. 

 Plaintiff did not file a motion seeking leave to supplement, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), and his proposed 2

supplemental complaint was lodged rather than filed.

2

Plaintiff objects to dismissal of this action on the ground that he received a Director’s Level

response to his appeal on November 14, 2005, and it will waste the Court’s resources if he is

required to file another action. Be that as it may, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding with this suit

because he filed it before exhaustion occurred. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th

Cir. 2002). The Court does not have discretion to overlook a decision to file suit prior to exhaustion

in the interest of resource conservation. This action must be dismissed in light of plaintiff’s decision

to file suit prior to the receipt of a Director’s Level decision. Id. 1

On July 5, 2006, plaintiff submitted a proposed supplemental complaint adding a new claim

against a new party. In light of the dismissal of this action for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit,

plaintiff may not supplement his complaint and the Clerk’s Office shall return the proposed

supplemental complaint to plaintiff. 

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 17, 2006, is adopted in full;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall return plaintiff’s proposed supplemental complaint to him;

and

3. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

prior to filing suit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01370-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2