Williams v. Verna et al

Filing 36

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 33 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Plaintiff's Objections and ORDER DENYING 29 Defendant Verna's Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust the Administrative Remedies signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/7/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
ANTHONY VERNA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00764-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING
DEFENDANT VERNA’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO
EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
[ECF Nos. 29, 33, 35]

Plaintiff Shannon Williams, a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

17
18

(“BOP”) proceeding pro se filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

19

Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) on June 2, 2016. The matter was referred to a United

20

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation

21
22

recommending that Defendant Verna’s motion for summary judgment for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

23

the administrative remedies be granted, and the retaliation claim against him be dismissed. The

24

Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were

25

to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on April 9, 2018. See Local Rule 304(b).

26

Defendant did not file a response. See Local Rule 304(d).

27

///

28

///
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de

2

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, and Plaintiff’s objections, the

3

Court respectfully finds the Findings and Recommendations cannot be adopted based on the evidence

4

submitted by Plaintiff.

5

In his objections, Plaintiff states that “[a]dministrative remedy 849029R1, surely put the BOP

6

administrative officials” on notice “of the problem of Verna retaliating against the Plaintiff.” (ECF

7

No. 35 at 2, Ex. A.) Defendant did not address this appeal in his motion for summary judgment

8

beyond attachment of the BOP printout of Plaintiff’s administrative remedies from May 2014 to June

9

2016. The printout indicates that appeal number 849029 concerned a “DHO HEARING” and it

10

appears to have been denied and closed. (Vickers Decl., Ex. 2, ECF No. 29-3.)

11

Plaintiff has submitted a copy of appeal number 849029 which appears on its face to allege the

12

same retaliatory allegations against Defendant Verna as set forth in the operative complaint.

13

Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff’s claim and has presented no evidence to determine such appeal

14

does not exhaust the administrative remedies. Construing all facts in favor of the non-moving party

15

and based on the evidence submitted by Plaintiff that is not addressed or disputed by Defendant, the

16

Court cannot determine at this time that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment based on

17

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Therefore, Defendant Verna’s motion will

18

be denied.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

adopted; and

21
22
23

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on March 22, 2018 (Doc. No. 33) are not

2.

Defendant Verna’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 29) is denied without
prejudice for the reasons stated herein.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: September 7, 2018

27

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2