Maurice P. Olivier v. Gloria Molina et al

Filing 113

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 105 . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United St ates Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which the parties have objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Repo rt and Recommendation is adopted; (2) Defendant's unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion based on failure to exhaust remedies is granted in part and denied in part; (3) Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is gra nted in part and denied in part; (4) Claim Two with respect to cell infestation other than lice is dismissed without prejudice; (5) Defendant Baca in his individual capacity in Claim Two is dismissed with prejudice; (6) both claims based on the Fifth Amendment are dismissed with prejudice; (7) both claims based on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners are dismissed with prejudice; and (8) the failure to train claim with respect to Claim Two is dismissed with prejudice. (See Order for details.) (mp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MAURICE P. OLIVIER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15
16
17
18

GLORIA MOLINA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 08-7169-JFW (AGR)

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records

19

on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

20

Judge. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of

21

the Report to which the parties have objected. The Court accepts the findings

22

and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

23

The Report recommended dismissal without prejudice of Claim Two for

24

failure to exhaust the cell infestation grievance other than lice. (Report at 13.)

25

Defendant objects because although Plaintiff started the exhaustion process, he

26

did not complete it. (Defendant Objections at 6.) However, Plaintiff was not

27

required to further exhaust the lice portion of his grievance because according to

28

Deputy Kelley, the Custodian of Records for the Men’s Central Jail Legal Unit,

1

Plaintiff was seen and treated, his cell was inspected, and no lice were found.

2

(Dkt. No. 39, Kevin Kelley Decl. ¶¶ 1, 13 & n.1.); see Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d

3

926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (“a prisoner need not press on to exhaust further levels

4

of review once he has . . . received all ‘available’ remedies at an intermediate

5

level of review”).

6

Defendant’s other objections and Petitioner’s objections are without merit.

7

IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is adopted; (2)

8

Defendant’s unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion based on failure to exhaust

9

remedies is granted in part and denied in part; (3) Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6)

10

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted in part and denied in part;

11

(4) Claim Two with respect to cell infestation other than lice is dismissed without

12

prejudice; (5) Defendant Baca in his individual capacity in Claim Two is dismissed

13

with prejudice; (6) both claims based on the Fifth Amendment are dismissed with

14

prejudice; (7) both claims based on the Standard Minimum Rules for the

15

Treatment of Prisoners are dismissed with prejudice; and (8) the failure to train

16

claim with respect to Claim Two is dismissed with prejudice.

17
18
19

DATED: August 15, 2011

JOHN F. WALTER
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2