Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01563-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY MAGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01563-OWW-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST BE DENIED

(Doc. 31)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Jimmy Magee (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed June 1, 2007, against defendants Chavez and Simpson

(“defendants”) for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On December 28,

2007, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff filed his

opposition on January 22, 2008 (Doc. 34). Defendants filed their reply on January 30, 2008 (Doc.

37), and plaintiff filed a further response on February 15, 2008 (Doc. 39).

II. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust

A. Exhaustion Requirement

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life,

Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative

defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.

Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The failure to

exhaust nonjudicial administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject to an unenumerated

Rule 12(b) motion, rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza

v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curium)).

In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court

concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

B. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2007). The process is initiated by submitting

a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal

level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s

Level.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being

appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6©. In orderto satisfy section 1997e(a),

California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit.

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

The Eighth Amendment claim at issue in this action accrued on September 5, 2005, when

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In their reply, defendants construe plaintiffs opposition to be that by filing his second amended complaint 1

after exhausting his administrative remedies, he has properly exhausted. To the extent that this is plaintiff’s position,

plaintiff’s argument is incorrect. “[A]n action is ‘brought’ for purposes of § 1997e(a) when the complaint is 

tendered to the district clerk . . . .” Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Ford v.

Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 400 (7th Cir. 2004)). 

3

defendants allegedly used excessive force against plaintiff during a prison riot. Defendants do not

dispute that plaintiff filed his administrative appeals through the Director’s level. However,

defendants argue that plaintiff’s initiation of this lawsuit prior to completing the inmate appeals

process bars this action.

In support of their motion, defendants refer to exhibits filed with plaintiff’s second amended

complaint that they contend demonstrate plaintiff’s noncompliance with the exhaustion requirement.

Plaintiff filed suit on December 8, 2005. Defendants state that plaintiff’s appeal, log number WSPO-05-00959, was submitted on November 29, 2005 (Doc. 14, p.27, §G). Defendants state that the

informal and first-level appeal were bypassed because plaintiff’s grievance was a staff complaint.

Defendants state that plaintiff’s appeal was assigned to a reviewer for handling at the second level

of appeal on November 29, 2005, and that this review was completed in a timelymanner, on January

3, 2006. (Doc. 31, p.9, Escalante Dec., ¶5-6). Defendants submit that the Inmate Appeals Branch

(IAB) only received the Director’s level appeal from plaintiff on February 16, 2006, two months after

plaintiff filed his original complaint, and that the IAB letter denying plaintiff’s appeal was completed

on May 12, 2006.(Doc. 14, pp.27-9; Doc. 31, p.9, Escalante Dec., ¶7). Defendants therefore contend

that exhaustion did not occur until May 12, 2006, well after plaintiff filed suit.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion.(Doc. 34). Although the

court has some difficulty following plaintiff’s argument, it is this court’s understanding that plaintiff

asserts generally that a litigant need only exhaust the administrative remedies that are available to

him in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement set out in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of

1995. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

1

This court has also reviewed plaintiff’s response to defendants’ reply. (Doc. 39). In his

response, plaintiff argues that he properly exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff states that

he filed his grievance (CDC Form 602) on September 25, 2005. Plaintiff argues that defendants

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/30/08 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

failed to respond in a timely manner, and in so doing, stalled the grievance/complaint procedure

(Doc. 39, p.2). 

Pursuant to section 3084.6(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations, “[s]econd level

responses shall be completed within 20 working days, or 30 working days if first level is waived

pursuant to section 3084.5(a)(3)”. Cal. Codes Regs. tit 15, §3084.6(b)(3). Further, “[t]ime limits

for submitting or reviewing appeals shall commence upon the date of receipt of the appeal document

by the appeals coordinator or the appellant”. Cal. Codes Regs. tit 15, §3084.6(a). 

Although there are no Ninth Circuit Court cases on point, other Circuit Courts have

addressed the issue of the effect of prison officials’ failure to respond to grievances in a timely

manner, and held that exhaustion occurs when prison officials fail to respond to a grievance within

the policy time limits. Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 2004)

(administrative remedies are exhausted when prison officials fail to timely respond to properly filed

grievance); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (the failure to respond to a

grievance within the policy time limits renders remedy unavailable); Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d

829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (when prison officials fail to respond, the remedy becomes unavailable, and

exhaustion occurs); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. 2001) (district court did not err

when it declined to dismiss claim for failure to exhaust where prison failed to respond to grievance);

Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999) (when a valid grievance has been filed and the

state’s time forresponding has expired, the remedies are deemed exhausted); Underwood v. Wilson,

151 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998) (when time limit for prison’s response has expired, the remedies

are exhausted); see also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003) (recognizing that a

remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy); Brown v.

Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 2002) (formal grievance procedure not available where prison

officials told prisoner to wait for termination of investigation before filing formal grievance and then

never informed prisoner of termination of investigation); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th

Cir. 2001) (a remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy).

In joining the Eighth and Fifth Circuits with respect to this issue, the Seventh Circuit Court stated

that it “refuse[d] to interpret the PLRA ‘so narrowly as to . . . permit [prison officials] to exploit the

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/30/08 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

exhaustion requirement through indefinite delay in responding to the grievances.’” Lewis v.

Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Goodman v. Carter, No. 2000 C 948, 2001

WL 755137, at *3 (N.D.Ill. July 2, 2001)).

In this instance, plaintiff stated that he submitted a CDC 602 grievance form concerning his

excessive force complaint against defendants Chavez and Simpson on September 25, 2005. The

second-level appeal response signed by the Chief Deputy Warden acknowledges receipt of plaintiff’s

grievance on that date (Doc. 14, p.32). As explained above, time limits for reviewing appeals

commence upon the date of receipt of the appeal document. Cal. Codes Regs. tit 15, §3084.6(a).

Therefore, prison officials were required to respond to plaintiff’s complaint within 30 working days

of September 25, 2005. 

Plaintiff did not file suit until December 8, 2005, after the deadline for completion of the

second-level response. Neither party presented any evidence that plaintiff had any notice that the

response would be late or when to expect the response. In the absence of such notice and given the

presence of solid authority supporting the proposition, the court rejects defendants’ argument that

they are entitled to dismissal because the second-level and Director’s responses were issued after

plaintiff filed suit, and the court finds that exhaustion occurred when prison officials failed to

respond to plaintiff’s inmate appeal within the thirty-day time frame set for in the California Code

of Regulations. Accordingly, the court recommends that defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b)

motion be denied.

 III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’ unenumerated Rule

12(b) motion, filed December 28, 2007, be DENIED on the grounds that exhaustion occurred when

prison officials failed to timely respond to plaintiff’s inmate appeal.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations”. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/30/08 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 30, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/30/08 Page 6 of 6