(PC) Seymour v. Wasco State Prison Administration, et al.

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING 45 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action without Prejudice; ORDER DENYING 46 Motion for Permission to Refile Civil Complaint as MOOT; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Open New Case signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/28/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

AARON D. SEYMOUR,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01485-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

H. SHIRLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 31 & 45)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PERMISSION TO REFILE CIVIL
COMPLAINT AS MOOT
(ECF No. 46)

18

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO OPEN
NEW CASE

19

(ECF Nos. 47 & 48)

20

Aaron D. Seymour (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis in this civil rights action. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

On April 14, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that

24

Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing this case.

25

(ECF No. 31). On May 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff until July 8, 2022, to file his

26

response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and opened discovery solely on the

27

issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies. (ECF No. 38). On May

28
1

1

23, 2022, Plaintiff filed his opposition. (ECF No. 41). On May 26, 2022, Defendants filed

2

their reply. (ECF No. 42).

3

On June 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and

4

recommendations, recommending that “Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be

5

granted,” and that “[t]his action be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the action

6

given that he exhausted his available administrative remedies, but he did so after he filed the

7

operative complaint.” (ECF No. 45, p. 11).

8
9

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been

10

filed. However, on the same day the findings and recommendations were issued, Plaintiff filed

11

refiled his opposition (ECF No. 44), along with a new supporting declaration (ECF No. 43).

12

On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for permission to refile his civil complaint, along

13

with a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 46, 47, & 48).

14

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

15

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

16

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

17

analysis.

18

As the Court is adopting the findings and recommendations, including the

19

recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the action,

20

the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for permission to refile his civil complaint as moot.1

21

However, as Plaintiff already refiled his complaint, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to

22

open a new action.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also asks the Court to recognize that he is proceeding without counsel and that he is only an
apprentice at law. The Court will not “recognize” that Plaintiff is an apprentice at law, but, as noted above,
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this case.
Finally, Plaintiff also asks the Court to refile its findings and recommendations. Plaintiff does not
identify which findings and recommendations he wants the Court to refile. He also provides no explanation as to
why the Court should refile any findings and recommendations. Accordingly, this request is DENIED.
2

1

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on June 15, 2022,

3

are ADOPTED in full.

4

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

5

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the action given that

6

he exhausted his available administrative remedies, but he did so after he filed the

7

operative complaint.

8

4. Plaintiff’s motion for permission to refile his civil complaint is denied as moot.

9

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to:

10

a. Open a new § 1983 action for Plaintiff;

11

b. Assign a random magistrate judge to the action [as mentioned above, this

12
13

can be switched to say assign AWI and EPG];
c. File and docket a copy of Plaintiff’s lodged complaint (ECF No. 47) and

14

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 48) in the

15

newly opened action;

16

d. Provide Plaintiff with the case number for the newly opened action; and

17

e. Close this case.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2022
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3