Morales v. Davey et al
Filing
81
ORDER ADOPTING 67 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER GRANTING 54 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and ORDER Dismissing Action Without Prejudice for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/15/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSE LORENZO MORALES,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
R. TORRES, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01673-AWI-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Docs. 54, 67)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Jose Lorenzo Morales is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this
18
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate
19
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On July 3, 2019, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that
21
Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff filed an
22
opposition on November 19, 2019 (Doc. 65), to which Defendants filed a reply (Doc. 66).
23
On December 27, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
24
recommendations to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 67.) The magistrate
25
judge found that, although Plaintiff exhausted an administrative grievance in December 2016, that
26
grievance failed to exhaust the claims in this action because it “neglected to name the defendants
27
in [the] grievance and to provide sufficient information to allow CDCR to identify them.” (Id. at
28
5, 7, 8.) The magistrate judge further found that the exception to proper exhaustion outlined in
1
Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016), does not apply to this case. (Id. at 9-10.) Lastly, the
2
magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to show that administrative remedies were effectively
3
unavailable to him, and thus he was not excused from failing to exhaust. (Id. at 7, 10-11.)
4
Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on February 7, 2020. (Doc.
5
72.) Defendants filed a reply to the objections on February 19, 2020. (Doc. 73.) In his objections,
6
Plaintiff argues that Reyes v. Smith, supra, does apply to this case, and that Plaintiff exhausted all
7
the remedies that were available to him. (Doc. 72 at 3-5.)
8
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including
10
Plaintiff’s objections and Defendants’ reply, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to
11
be supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court agrees that Plaintiff failed to properly
12
exhaust administrative remedies with respect to the claims in this action, and the exception to
13
proper exhaustion provided in Reyes does not apply. The Court also agrees that Plaintiff does not
14
meet his burden in showing that administrative remedies were unavailable.
15
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
16
1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 27, 2019 (Doc. 67) are
17
ADOPTED in full;
18
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 54) is GRANTED;
19
3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
20
21
remedies; and,
4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
25
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?