(PC) Leonard v. Casillas ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 FREDERICK E. LEONARD, No. 2:18-cv-2004 WBS CKD P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 G. CASILLAS, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 20 filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 21 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 22 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On June 3, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings 24 and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and 25 which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the 26 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 27 days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and 28 recommendations. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de 3 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 4 file, the court finds the recommendations to be supported by the 5 record, though for somewhat different reasoning than that set 6 forth in the June 3, 2021 findings and recommendations. The 7 court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that 8 plaintiff did not exhaust his claim against defendant Casillas. 9 However, the court finds that plaintiff has not exhausted his 10 administrative remedies for this claim because he failed to 11 further appeal after his first level appeal was only partially 12 granted in November 2017.1 See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Cal. Code. 13 Regs. Tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, 3084.7, 3084.82 (requiring inmates to 14 proceed through three levels of review before administrative 15 remedies are deemed exhausted); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90- 16 91 (2006). 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 3, 19 2021, are adopted to the extent they are not inconsistent with 20 the reasoning in this order; 21 2. Defendant Casillas’s motion for summary judgment 22 1 The court assumes, but does not decide, that 23 during his first level appeal, plaintiff properly raised his claim that Casillas retaliated against him by submitting a 24 disciplinary charge. 25 2 Pursuant to an emergency order issued by the State of California’s Office of Administrative Law, most regulations 26 regarding the inmate grievance and appeal process were repealed 27 or significantly amended on October 26, 2020. The parties do not dispute that the pre-repeal/amendment versions of the regulations 28 apply to plaintiff’s claims in this case. 1 (Docket No. 65) is granted; 2 3. Plaintiff’s remaining claim is dismissed for 3 failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to 4 filing suit;? and 5 4. This case is closed. 6 | Dated: July 8, 2021 ttle see KY. AZ. bE 7 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I] 3 Plaintiff’s claims against two other defendants 28 | have already been dismissed.