1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LORENZO MORALES, Case No. 1:17-cv-01673-AWI-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 R. TORRES, et al., (Docs. 54, 67) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Jose Lorenzo Morales is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action under

. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate 19 judge pursuant to

(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 5, 7, 8.) The magistrate judge further found that the exception to proper exhaustion outlined in 1 | Reyes v. Smith,

(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.

does apply to this case, and that Plaintiff exhausted all 7 | the remedies that were available to him. (Doc. 72 at 3-5.) 8 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this Court has 9 | conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 10 | Plaintiffs 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 remedies; and, 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 94 | Dated: _December 15, 2020 ae SRICr 25 26 27 28