Opinion
1:20-cv-0983 JLT GSA (PC)
10-26-2023
ISAIAH WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN SUTTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF EXHAUSTION (DOCS. 45, 50, 52, AND 56)
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed their motion for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Doc. 45.) Almost two months after briefing was completed (Doc. 48; Doc. 49), Plaintiff then filed a “Notice of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies,” and attached an appeal decision dated a month before. (Doc. 50). Defendants moved to strike the Notice pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 52.)
The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations addressing Defendants' motions for summary judgment and to strike the Notice. (Doc. 56.) As an initial matter, the magistrate judge found the Notice “was untimely filed and should be stricken from the record for that reason alone.” (Doc. 56 at 4.) In addition, the magistrate judge found the Notice was not timely filed to support Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment, because the Notice was filed on March 27, 2023, and his opposition was due no later than February 6, 2023. (Id. at 5.) Finally, the magistrate judge that even if the Notice was timely, it “provides no evidence that Plaintiff exhausted his remedies for the claims in this case before he filed this lawsuit.” (Id. at 6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended Defendants' motion to strike be granted and the Notice be stricken. (Id.)
Next, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (See Doc. 56 at 23-31.) The magistrate judge also determined, “Plaintiff failed to submit any competent evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute for trial that Plaintiff exhausted his remedies.” (See id. at 32.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the motion for summary judgment be granted, and the case be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on September 11, 2023. (Doc. 57.) Plaintiff contends his Notice was timely filed to be considered with his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff asserts the matter should be permitted to proceed since he could simply file another action, which “would start this whole process all over.” (Id.) Furthermore, Plaintiff contends the magistrate judge failed to consider the fact that he had filed appeals and argues the prison administration worked against him “to prevent Plaintiff from exposing staff misconduct.” (Id. at 1-2.)
Importantly, Plaintiff's objections fail to undermine the finding of the magistrate judge that his notice was untimely, because his opposition was due no later than February 6, 2023, and he did not file the notice until nearly two months after this date. In addition, Plaintiff ignores the extensive discussion by the magistrate judge concerning the appeals made-and cancelled without Plaintiff properly appealing the cancellations- to determine that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his claims. (See Doc. 56 at 19-28.) Thus, contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the magistrate judge clearly addressed his appeals. Finally, as the magistrate judge determined, Plaintiff did not identify any evidence to support a conclusion that he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Whether Plaintiff elects to initiate another action, the matter now before the Court did not comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act and is subject to dismissal.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The Findings and Recommendations issued August 28, 2023 (Doc. 56), are ADOPTED in full.
2. Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 52) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's Notice of Exhaustion, docketed March 27, 2023 (Doc. 50) is STRICKEN from the record as untimely.
4. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is GRANTED.
5. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
6. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.