Malcolm Stroud v. Pruitt et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING 48 Findings and Recommendations to Deny Defendants' 29 Motion for Summary Judgment re: Exhaustion, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/21/2024. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MALCOLM TANDY LAMON STROUD,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PRUITT, et al.,

No. 1:17-cv-01659 JLT BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT RE: EXHAUSTION
(Docs. 29, 48)

15

Defendants.

16
Malcolm Tandy Lamon Stroud, aka Treasure Stroud1, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

17
18

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his first

19

amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts Defendant Pruitt sexually abused him in violation of his

20

Eighth Amendment rights and that Defendants Pruitt and Smith discriminated against him in

21

violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Docs. 17, 19.)

22

Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative

23

remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 29.)
The assigned magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff submitted an appeal that placed

24
25

“prison officials on notice of her sexual abuse and discrimination claims against Defendants, but

26
In the most recent document filed by Plaintiff in this action, she identifies herself as “Treasure Stroud, a.k.a.
Malcolm Tandy Lamon Stroud.” (Doc. 46 at 1.) It is unclear whether Plaintiff legally changed her name while this
action has been pending. If so, Plaintiff need only file copies of documents demonstrating this change, and the Court
will update its docket.
1

27
28

1

1

prison officials failed to process or otherwise respond to that grievance.” (Doc. 48 at 17.) The

2

magistrate judge found Plaintiff was “deemed to have exhausted her available administrative

3

remedies,” and recommended the motion be denied. (Id.)

4

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that

5

any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 48 at 18.) The Court advised the parties that the

6

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to

7

challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772

8

F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has

9

passed.

10

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this

11

case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and

12

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

13

1.

14

The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 26, 2024 (Doc. 48) are
ADOPTED in full.

15

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust (Doc. 29) is

16

DENIED without prejudice to refiling a second motion for summary judgment

17

related to the availability of administrative remedies2.

18

3.

This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

21

March 21, 2024

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

If the defense contemplates a second such motion, they SHALL specifically address the
evidence provided by the plaintiff related to her inquiries into the 602 grievance Ms. Stroud
claims to have submitted on 12/8/15.
2