(PC) Ardds v. Bobadilla

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARRDS, No. 1:20-cv-00887-DAD-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING

v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S

BOBADILLA, et al., FAILURE TO EXHAUST

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PRIOR TO

Defendants. FILING SUIT

(Doc. Nos. 28, 36)

Plaintiff Antoine L. Arrds is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 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 August 25, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 28) be granted due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as is required. (Doc. No. 36.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 10.) On September 15, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 37.) Defendants did not file objections, but they did file a response to plaintiff’s objections on September 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 38.)

In his objections, plaintiff largely reiterates arguments raised in his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and addressed by the pending findings and recommendations. (Id. at 4–6, 13–16.) In addition, plaintiff also objects generally to what he believes are systemic failures of the CDCR inmate grievance procedure and CDCR’s “unethical tricks” and “collusive practices of reprisals.” (Id. at 6.) Importantly, however, plaintiff does not meaningfully object to the magistrate judge’s finding that he did not submit his inmate appeal (Appeal Log No. CSPC-3-19-05407) to the third and final level of review (the Office of Appeals) before filing this lawsuit, which is required by the inmate grievance procedure of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) for exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 36 at 6–7.) That is, the magistrate judge noted that “[a]lthough there is an entry on Plaintiff[‘s] legal mail log reflecting mail sent to the Office of Appeals on August 21, 2020, there is no indication that it was appeal No. CSPC-3-19-05407.” (Id. at 7.) The magistrate judge further concluded that even assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiff had submitted inmate appeal No. CSPC-3-19-05407 to the Office of Appeals on August 21, 2020, that evidence is still insufficient to show that plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit in this action on December 8, 2019. (Doc. No. 36 at 7; see also Doc. No. 2 at 3 (severing plaintiff’s claims against defendants Bobadilla and Ards from prisoner civil rights action initiated by plaintiff filing a complaint dated December 8, 2019 and docketed on December 13, 2019). While this court must allow plaintiff some leeway with respect to the reading of his pleadings before this court in light of his pro se status, exhaustion of administrative remedies under § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) is mandatory. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections and defendants’ response, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. ///// /////

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 25, 2021 (Doc. No. 36) are adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, with respect to the claims presented in this action, prior to filing suit as required (Doc. No. 28) is granted;

3. This case is dismissed without prejudice; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. si am

'0 Dated: _ October 20, 2021 Ll A 5 Aan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE