Ledesma v. Adame et al

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30 , 51 & 52 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/21/2017: This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings; 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSE LEDESMA, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF NOS. 30, 51, & 52) ADAME, et al., Defendants. 14 15 Jose Ledesma (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 17 United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On February 3, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground 19 that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing this action. 20 (ECF No. 30). On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 35). 21 On April 19, 2017, Defendants filed a reply to the opposition. (ECF No. 37). 22 Because it appeared that Plaintiff’s evidence created a dispute of fact regarding whether 23 Plaintiff exhausted his available administrative remedies, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean 24 held an evidentiary hearing on July 28, 2017. After hearing the evidence, Judge Grosjean 25 decided to allow each party to submit a supplemental brief. (ECF No. 44). Defendants filed 26 their supplemental brief on August 11, 2017. (ECF No. 49). Plaintiff filed his supplemental 27 brief on August 17, 2017. (ECF No. 50). On August 24, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to 28 strike the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s supplemental brief. (ECF No. 51). 1 1 On September 15, 2017, Judge Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, 2 recommending that Defendants’ motion to strike be denied as moot, that Defendants’ motion 3 for summary judgment be denied, and that Plaintiff be deemed to have satisfied the exhaustion 4 requirement. (ECF No. 52). The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the 5 findings and recommendations. Defendants objected. (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff did not object to 6 the findings and recommendations or file a reply to Defendants’ objections. Defendants’ 7 objections challenge the Magistrate Judge’s evidentiary rulings, inferences drawn from the 8 evidence submitted, credibility determinations, and finding that Plaintiff submitted sufficient 9 evidence to demonstrate that he actually submitted a 602 grievance regarding this incident on 10 November 17, 2011. 11 As a preliminary matter, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination 12 that the copy of Plaintiff’s 602 petition and Form 22 petition status requests are the most 13 probative evidence that Plaintiff actually submitted an administrative grievance regarding the 14 allegedly retaliatory placement in contraband watch that was lost or ignored, rendering the 15 administrative exhaustion process effectively unavailable. The Court does not now weigh in on 16 all of Defendants’ evidentiary rulings individually. The Court reviewed the entire hearing 17 transcript and the parties’ submissions. The 602 petition and Form 22 submissions were all 18 appropriately admitted.1 In reliance on Plaintiff’s 602 petition copy, his Form 22 submissions, 19 and his testimony regarding those submissions, the Court agrees with the conclusion arrived at 20 by the Magistrate Judge—Plaintiff filed a 602 petition regarding the allegedly retaliatory 21 placement in contraband watch, Plaintiff filed repeated Form 22 status requests regarding that 22 petition, and the prison staff failed to respond rendering the administrative exhaustion process 23 effectively unavailable to plaintiff. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 25 1 26 27 28 Defendant’s objection that Plaintiff’s 602 petition and Form 22s were not authenticated is not well taken. Plaintiff testified that each of those documents were what they purported to be. Plaintiff authored those documents and was the proper person to authenticate. The Court also rejects Defendants’ objection that the Form 22 submissions are irrelevant for determining whether Plaintiff filed a 602 petition. Repeated requests for a status update regarding the 602 petition tend to suggest that the 602 petition was originally filed. 2 1 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 2 the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 3 analysis. 4 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 15, 6 2017, are ADOPTED in full; 7 2. Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED as moot; 8 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED; 9 4. Plaintiff is deemed to have satisfied the exhaustion requirement; 10 11 12 5. Defendants’ have thirty days from the date of this order to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32); and 6. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 21, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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?