Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Weaver

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 3, 2009

STEVEN PATRICK WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
H. WEAVER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 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 General Order No. 262.

On February 26, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff asserts that his complaint should not be dismissed because of his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit because he has now exhausted all administrative remedies.

However, the attachments to plaintiff's objections reveal that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit because he did not receive a denial from the Director's Level of Review until March 28, 2008, two months after he commenced this action. A prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing any papers in federal court and is not entitled to a stay of judicial proceedings in order to exhaust. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). This defect in plaintiff's pleading cannot be cured by amendment and thus, plaintiff's motion to amend, filed with his objections, is denied.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 26, 2009, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's March 3 and March 17, 2009 motions to amend are denied; and

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

20090403

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.