Petosyan v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 81

AMENDED ORDER Directing Defendants To File A Substantive Reply To Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 79 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/16/2013.(Responses due by 9/23/2013) (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARTHUR PETROSYAN,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
ALI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00593 – AWI – JLT (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
A SUBSTANTIVE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS
(Doc. 79)

17

On February 19, 2013, Defendants Ali, Grannis, Youssef, and Zamora (collectively

18

“Defendants”) filed their motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), which the Court

19

subsequently referred to the Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 52, 66). Plaintiff opposed on the motion to

20

dismiss and presented a number of evidentiary objections on August 2, 2013. (Doc. 71).

21

Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss to

22

which the Plaintiff now objects. (Docs. 78, 79).

The

23

In his objections to the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff argues he was not required to

24

appeal the Director’s Level rejection or cancellation of Institution Log No. KVSP-O-07-02123 given

25

the state of the law in March 2008. (Doc. 79 at 3-4). He further notes that Defendants failed to define

26

what constitutes a “final decision” at the Director’s Level. Id. Indeed, a review of the pleadings

27

indicates that Defendants failed to provide any statutory authority to demonstrate that Plaintiff was

28

explicitly required to appeal the cancellation or rejection of Log No. KVSP-O-07-02123 at the Third
1

1

Level in 2008 or 2009. Furthermore, Defendants fail to indicate whether Log No. KVSP-O-07-02123

2

was timely appealed from the Second Level to the Third Level.
ORDER

3
4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. Defendants SHALL FILE a substantive response to Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 79) on or
before Monday, September 23, 2013;

6
7

2. In their response, at a minimum, Defendants SHALL address the argument that the

8

California regulations in March 2008 did not require Plaintiff to appeal a cancellation or

9

“screen-out” decision made at the Director’s Level and specifically cite—and attach copies
of—the regulations in place at that time which required the appeal, if any.

10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 16, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2