(PC) Leonard v. Casillas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----

FREDERICK E. LEONARD, No. 2:18-cv-2004 WBS CKD P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER G. CASILLAS, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §

21 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 3, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the recommendations to be supported by the record, though for somewhat different reasoning than that set forth in the June 3, 2021 findings and recommendations. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that plaintiff did not exhaust his claim against defendant Casillas. However, the court finds that plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies for this claim because he failed to further appeal after his first level appeal was only partially granted in November 2017.1 See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Cal. Code. Regs. Tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, 3084.7, 3084.82 (requiring inmates to proceed through three levels of review before administrative remedies are deemed exhausted); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90- 91 (2006).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 3, 2021, are adopted to the extent they are not inconsistent with the reasoning in this order;

2. Defendant Casillas’s motion for summary judgment 1 The court assumes, but does not decide, that during his first level appeal, plaintiff properly raised his claim that Casillas retaliated against him by submitting a disciplinary charge.

2 Pursuant to an emergency order issued by the State of California’s Office of Administrative Law, most regulations regarding the inmate grievance and appeal process were repealed or significantly amended on October 26, 2020. The parties do not dispute that the pre-repeal/amendment versions of the regulations apply to plaintiff’s claims in this case. (Docket No. 65) is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s remaining claim is dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit;? and

4. This case is closed.

Dated: July 8, 2021 ttle see KY. AZ. bE

WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I]

3 Plaintiff’s claims against two other defendants have already been dismissed.