Callins v. Stainer et al
Filing
58
ORDER ADOPTING 55 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Case Without Prejudice signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/14/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CARLTON R. CALLINS,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:17-cv-00840-DAD-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
C. PFEIFFER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. No. 55)
16
17
18
Plaintiff Carlton R. Callins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
19
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.
21
On March 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
22
recommending that plaintiff’s case be dismissed due to failure to prosecute and failure to comply
23
with court orders. (Doc. No. 55 at 3.) The findings and recommendations were served on
24
plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14)
25
days of service. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff filed timely objections on March 16, 2020, and defendants
26
replied on March 20, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 56, 57.)
27
28
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
1
1
including plaintiff’s objections and defendants’ reply, the court will adopt the magistrate judge’s
2
recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
3
In his objections, plaintiff alleges that he sent a letter to the court on December 22, 2019,
4
informing it that he had filed a third and final appeal of his inmate grievance on the same day.
5
(Doc. No. 56 at 2.) In light of plaintiff’s objections, the court will not dismiss this case for failure
6
to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders.
7
The court will nevertheless adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation that this action
8
be dismissed without prejudice, because plaintiff, by his own admission, failed to exhaust his
9
available administrative remedies prior to filing suit as is required. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
10
199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199–1201 (9th Cir. 2002); 42 U.S.C. §
11
1997e(a). As plaintiff admits in his objections, he only filed a third and final appeal with respect
12
to his inmate grievance on December 22, 2019 and does not expect the exhaustion process to be
13
completed until March 23, 2020. (Doc. No. 56 at 2.) This action, however, was filed on June 23,
14
2017, nearly three years earlier and it therefore must be dismissed. (Doc. No. 1.) See Jones, 549
15
U.S. at 211 (“There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that
16
unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.”). Plaintiff, however, may re-file this case after
17
he finishes exhausting his available administrative remedies if the action is not otherwise barred.
18
Accordingly:
19
1.
20
21
adopted;
2.
22
23
24
25
The findings and recommendations issued on March 4, 2020 (Doc. No. 55) are
This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his
available administrative remedies prior to filing this action as is required; and
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 14, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
2
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?