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)

Download PDF
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?