Exmundo v. Scribner et al

Filing 56

ORDER Adopting 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION and DENYING Defendants' 45 Motion to Dismiss signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/1/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

EMELITO EXMUNDO,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00205-AWI-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

(ECF No. 45 & No. 53)
14

Defendants.
/

15
16

ORDER

17
18
19

Plaintiff Emelito Exmundo (“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

20
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
21
22

Local Rule 302.

23

On June 15, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation

24

recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 45) for failure to exhaust be

25

denied. (ECF No. 53.) On July 13, 2011, Defendants filed objections to the Magistrate

26

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation disagreeing with the Court’s conclusion that

27
1

1

Plaintiff attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies but was thwarted by Defendants

2

who failed to respond to Plaintiff’s two prior attempts at exhaustion. Defendants rely on

3

Hendon v. Baroya, 2007 WL 3034263, *3 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 16, 2007) for their argument that

4
5
6

Plaintiff’s attempts did not exhaust his available administrative remedies and that, once the
third grievance was accepted, Plaintiff should have exhausted then.

7

The Court notes that one major difference between Hendon and the instant action

8

is that in Hendon the inmate did not submit a sworn statement, but only supplied argument

9

that he attempted exhaustion, which the Court did not rely on as evidence. Here, Plaintiff

10

submitted a sworn statement that he attempted to file two grievances which were not

11
12

responded to and, thus, the Court will consider it as evidence.

13

Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the issue, Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d

14

1108,1110 (9th Cir. 2008), there is authority for the proposition that if a prisoner submitted

15

a timely inmate appeal in compliance with the governing regulations and his appeal

16

received no response, or received a response only after an extraordinary delay, the

17

prisoner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement. See e.g., Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d

18
717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008); Aquilar-Avellaveda v. Terrell, 478 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir.
19
20

2007); Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006); Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of

21

America, 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 2004); Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663, 667 (2d.

22

2004); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002); Mitchell v. Horn, 318

23

F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003). In addition, in Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005),

24

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to interpret the exhaustion requirements of the

25
Prison Litigation Reform Act “so narrowly as to permit prison officials to exploit the
26
27

exhaustion requirement through indefinite delay in responding to grievances.” Brown, 422
2

1
2
3

F.3d at 943 n. 18 (internal alterations and marks omitted) (citations omitted).
Therefore, even though Plaintiff’s third attempt was accepted and processed, the
first two attempts and Defendants failure to respond them effectively exhaustion Plaintiff’s

4
5

available administrative remedies.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Local Rule 305,

7

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

8

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record

9

and by proper analysis. Thus, the Motion to Dismiss is HEREBY DENIED.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated:
0m8i78

August 1, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3