(PC) Wilkins v. CDCR ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY D. WILKINS, No. 2:18-cv-3163 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action that was removed 18 from state court. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 The court writes further here to address plaintiff’s position in objection to the findings and 28 recommendations that he exhausted his claims in a previous federal habeas petition. See, e.g., 1 Objections at 6 (citing Petition at 4, Wilkins v. Gastelo, No. 17-4322 (C.D. Cal. filed June 9, 2 2017), ECF No. 1). A federal habeas petition does not satisfy the administrative exhaustion 3 requirement that applies to civil rights claims under § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Woodford 4 v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006) (“Section 1997e(a) refers to ‘such administrative remedies as are 5 available,’ and thus points to the doctrine of exhaustion in administrative law.”). And as the 6 Magistrate Judge explained, the events underlying the federal habeas petition related to a 7 disciplinary proceeding, not an Eighth Amendment claim. See F&Rs at 7–8, ECF No. 42. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 22, 2020, are adopted in full; 10 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is granted; 11 3. This case is dismissed without prejudice; and 12 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. 13 DATED: November 3, 2020. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28