Bejarano v. Allison et al
Filing
132
ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/10/16. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BOB BEJARANO,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:11-cv-00589 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
BEST, et al.,
(Document 115)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Bob Bejarano (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action
19
on April 12, 2011, and it proceeds on his February 8, 2012, Second Amended Complaint against
20
Defendants M. Bejarano and O. Best for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
21
On December 15, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to
22
exhaust. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
24
On April 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the
25
motion for summary judgment be granted and that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The
26
Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any
27
objections must be filed within thirty days. After receiving leave to file late objections, Plaintiff
28
filed his objections on July 22, 2016. Defendants filed their reply on August 8, 2016.
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a
2
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
3
objections and Defendants’ reply, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are
4
supported by the record and proper analysis.
5
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that he (1) filed an appeal; and (2) that prison officials
6
should have forwarded the appeal to the correct institution, as stated in the CDC 602 Route Slip.
7
Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge did not discuss the route slip, and that the officials’
8
failure to forward the appeal thwarted his attempts at exhaustion.
9
Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. Plaintiff cites to the route slip to show that he
10
submitted a grievance in the first instance, but the Magistrate Judge assumed this fact in the
11
Findings and Recommendations. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
12
as this Court must, CSATF received the appeal at some point and cancelled it as untimely on July
13
6, 2010. However, there is no indication that Plaintiff filed a separate appeal on the cancellation.”
14
ECF No. 115, at 7. Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, a remedy remained because he
15
could have appealed the cancellation. Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1857-1859 (2010).
16
Plaintiff also argues that prison officials improperly applied their own regulations,
17
because they could have accepted his untimely grievance. 15 Cal.Code Regs. § 3000.5(f).
18
However, as Defendants note, the regulation at issue affords discretion to prison officials to
19
excuse non-compliance with regulatory deadlines, and they are not required to do so. Prison
20
officials’ decision not to exercise their discretion to overlook the untimeliness of Plaintiff’s
21
grievance does not excuse his failure to exhaust.
22
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 28, 2016, are adopted in full;
24
2.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Document 91) is GRANTED;
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
3.
2
3
4
5
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust.
This terminates this action in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
August 10, 2016
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?