/AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon ("plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 30, 2009, Defendants Magvas, Hernandez, Hamilton, Frescura, Cortez, Price, Alvarez, Aspieda, Vanzandt, Elize, Luna, and Vikjord filed a motion to dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. 90. 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 July 30, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations concerning the December 30, 2009 motion to dismiss, which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. On September 16, 2010, the Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations.
On September 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's September 16, 2010 order adopting the Findings and Recommendations. The Magistrate Judge construed this as a request to file late objections, which the court would then address in an amended order regarding the Findings and Recommendations, and granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file objections. Doc. 134.
On December 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations. Doc. 137.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the December 27, 2010 Objection, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Court provides the following additional analysis and addresses Plaintiff's main arguments below.
Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in his screening of Plaintiff's third amended complaint, and should not have dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims. The Magistrate Judge had submitted Findings and Recommendations on June 30, 2009, recommending dismissal of certain claims. Doc. 65. This Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations on August 11, 2009. Doc. 68. Nothing in Plaintiff's arguments leads this Court to reconsider its previous order. Additionally, this is not an argument properly raised in this instance, as these Findings and Recommendation concern Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff contends that his inartfully plead complaint should be granted greater deference and that his claims are part of a continuing pattern of retaliation. However, that goes against a plain reading of Plaintiff's claims, as Plaintiff contends that the deprivation of food, the only surviving issue in this action, had occurred from approximately September 15, 2006 to March 29, 2007. Pl.'s Third Am. Compl. ¶ 123, Doc. 41.*fn1 The Court is to construe pleadings by pro se litigants liberally.
Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (per curiam). However, this does not allow the Court to "supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court does not find any continuing pattern of retaliation was alleged in Plaintiff's third amended complaint.
B. Plaintiff's Exhausted Grievance
Plaintiff contends that he had filed an inmate grievance concerning Defendants' retaliatory actions on June 18, 2006, grievance No. CSP-06-03275. Plaintiff contends that he raised issues regarding prison officials' retaliation against Plaintiff, including contamination of meals, rupturing of plastic seals on Jewish kosher meals, failing to provide "adequate"*fn2 vegetables and fruits, and that he be provided only Kosher foods.
Assuming Plaintiff did exhaust administrative remedies as to the inmate grievance, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient notice as to the remaining claim in this action, deprivation of food. Plaintiff is correct that one of the crucial questions at issue here is what level of specificity is required in Plaintiff's grievances. Pursuant to Ninth Circuit law, when the prison grievance is silent as to the level of specificity, "a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought." Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002)).
In Griffin, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the prisoner failed to exhaust properly regarding officials to take appropriate responsive measures." Id. (quoting Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691, 697 (2d Cir. 2004)). Plaintiff contends that he does not have to specifically plead deprivation of food in his grievances in order to exhaust administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge found otherwise, and this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff did not provide enough information for prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures regarding deprivation of food. Thus, ...