Mario Molina v. Holland et al

Filing 82

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37 , 71 , 75 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/9/2018: This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO MOLINA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:15-cv-01260-DAD-EPG

v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

K. HOLLAND, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 37, 71, 75)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Mario Molina is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17
18

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
After holding an evidentiary hearing, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

20
21

recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 37)

22

be denied, that plaintiff’s motion for an expert witness (Doc. No. 71) be denied without prejudice,

23

and that plaintiff be deemed to have exhausted his available administrative remedies as to all

24

claims. (Doc. No. 75.) The parties were provided fourteen days in which to file objections to the

25

findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc No. 80.)

26

After seeking and receiving a seven day extension of time in which to file objections (Doc. Nos.

27

78, 79), defendants filed objections on March 23, 2018.

28

/////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

3

including defendants’ objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

4

supported by the record and proper analysis. The court notes that exhaustion is an affirmative

5

defense upon which the defendants bear the burden of proof. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204,

6

216; Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (the state bears the burden of

7

proving that a prisoner did not exhaust available administrative remedies); see also Williams v.

8

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2015).1 Here, defendants failed to satisfy their burden

9

of proof on summary judgment.

10

Accordingly,

11

1.

12

adopted in full;

13

2.

14

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies (Doc. No. 37) is denied;

15

3.

16

Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted his available administrative remedies as to
all claims;

17

4.

18

Plaintiff’s motion for expert witness (Doc. No. 71) is denied without prejudice;
and

19
20

The findings and recommendations issued March 2, 2018 (Doc. No. 75) are

5.

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

April 9, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

However, exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are rendered “effectively
unavailable” by the actions of prison officials. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-23 (9th Cir.
2010).
2