Garcia v. Miller et al

Filing 42

ORDER Adopting 34 Report and Recommendation Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court adopts the R&R. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 25) is granted. Garcias motion for preliminary judgement (Docket no. 32) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/1/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM GARCIA,

CASE NO. 14cv2266-LAB (BGS)

12

Plaintiff,
vs.

13
14

AMY MILLER, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

15
16
17

State prisoner William Garcia brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

18

against several prison employees. (Docket no. 34 at 1.) He submitted his claim through the

19

administrative grievance process, but filed this lawsuit before the process finished. (Id. at

20

3.) Defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing that Garcia failed to exhaust

21

administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C.

22

§ 1997e(a).

23

Recommendation (R&R), urging that Defendants' motion be granted (Docket no. 34.) Garcia

24

objected to the R&R, admitting he "made an inadvertent mistake" by filing early, but arguing

25

that he will suffer harm if he is forced to file a new lawsuit. (Docket 39 at 1–3.)

(Docket no. 25.)

Magistrate Judge Skomal issued a Report and

26

A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge's R&R on dispositive

27

matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the

28

magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Id. "A judge of the court
-1-

14cv2266

1

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by

2

the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories

4

and admission on file, together with the affidavits, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue

5

as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the moving party shows that there is an absence of evidence to

7

support the non-moving party's claims, the burden shifts to the non-moving party resisting

8

the motion to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."

9

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).

10

The Court construes Garcia's pleadings liberally. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

11

901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court is not, however, required to "comb the record

12

to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment," simply because the plaintiff

13

is proceeding pro se. Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001)

14

(internal quotation marks omitted).

15

The PLRA contains a strict requirement that prisoners must exhaust administrative

16

remedies before challenging prison conditions in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "Once

17

within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now

18

mandatory." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Garcia admits he didn't exhaust

19

his administrative remedies, so the Court can’t allow him to proceed with this lawsuit. The

20

Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 25)

21

is GRANTED. Garcia’s motion for preliminary judgement (Docket no. 32) is DENIED as

22

moot.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

DATED: October 1, 2015

26
27
28

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN Burns
United States District Judge

-2-

14cv2266