Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05612/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05612-0/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

NATHAN HALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. L. SCHULTEIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-5612 REC LJO P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND THIS

ACTION BE DISMISSED BASED ON

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST

PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 29)

I. Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Nathan Hall (“plaintiff”) is 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 complaint filed

April 23, 2004, on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Sweany, Busby,

Wieland, and Amos for use of excessive force, defendants Teesdale, Sweany, Pumphrey, and Busby

for failing to protect plaintiff, and defendant Wieland for delaying plaintiff’s access to water after

the pepper spray incident. 

On February 2, 2005, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b), defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust the administrative

remedies in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 1, 2005,

Case 1:04-cv-05612-REC-LJO Document 33 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion on

October 20, 2004. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 14.)

2

defendants filed a reply on March 7, 2005, and plaintiff filed a surreply on March 15, 2005.1

B. Legal Standard

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

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

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the

prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards,

nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S.

at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which

they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at 3084.1(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.” Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5

(2004). 

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.

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Based on the general principle that

summary judgment is on the merits while dismissal of an action for failure to exhaust is not on the

merits, the failure to exhaust nonjudicial administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject

Case 1:04-cv-05612-REC-LJO Document 33 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d

at 1119 (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 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. Id. at 1119-20. If the court concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative

remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

C. Discussion

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges in relevant part that he was attacked by inmate Young on

November 29, 2003, and defendants Teesdale, Sweeny, Pumphrey, and Busby observed the incident

for approximately two minutes. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Busby then came in the door but did

not order plaintiff or Young to get down. Young then came from behind defendant Busby and hit

plaintiff, knocking him down. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Busby then ordered him to stay down

and ordered Young to attack plaintiff. Young inmate struck plaintiff in the mouth. Plaintiff then

pushed Young to the floor and pinned him down. Defendants Sweeny, Busby, Wieland, and Amos

sprayed plaintiff with an entire can of pepper spray, and defendant Amos hit plaintiff with a baton.

Plaintiff alleges that at the time he was sprayed, his hands were at his side.

Plaintiff and inmate Young were taken to the showers and Young was allowed to shower,

even though he had not been sprayed. Defendant Wieland did not allow plaintiff to wash the pepper

spray off for thirty minutes, resulting in burning to the head, face, arm, and genital areas.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal of this action because plaintiff failed to

exhaust the administrative remedies. In support of their motion, defendants submit appeal log

number CCI-2-03-03178, submitted by plaintiff on December 7, 2003. (Motion, Exhibit A,

Attachment 1.) In the appeal, plaintiff grieves the facts at issue in his Eighth Amendment claims

against defendants. (Id.) The appeal was cancelled at the second formal level of review on January

28, 2004, due to plaintiff’s alleged lack of cooperation during the interview. (Id.) Defendants

submit evidence that plaintiff did not thereafter pursue the appeal to the third and final level of

review. (Exhibit A Grannis Dec., ¶ 10; Attachment 1.) 

Plaintiff contends that he exhausted by pursuing his appeal to the Director’s Level of review

and submits a copy of inmate appeal log number CCI 03-00474 as evidence. (Opp., Exhibit A.)

Case 1:04-cv-05612-REC-LJO Document 33 Filed 05/16/05 Page 3 of 5
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

 Pursuant to section 3084.6(b)(4) of the California Code of Regulations, “[t]hird level responses shall be

completed within 60 working days.” Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.6(b)(4). 

4

Appeal 03-03178 adequately grieved the claims at issue in this action. However, there is no

evidence that after it was cancelled at the second level of review for alleged non-cooperation,

plaintiff submitted it to the third and final level of review. Therefore, the appeal was not exhausted.

Appeal 03-00474 grieved issues relating to plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing. Although the

Director’s Level decision references the use of pepper spray and side handle batons, it does so in the

context of discussing plaintiff’s grievance that staff falsified reports. Based on a review of the

appeal and the Director’s Level decision, the court finds that appeal 03-00474 does not grieve the

claims at issue in this action. 

Further, even if appeal 03-00474 had related to the claims in this action, it was exhausted

after this suit was filed and would not preclude dismissal of this action. Exhaustion must occur prior

to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff submitted

the appeal to the Director’s Level on February 19, 2004, and filed suit on April 23, 2004. The

Director’s Level decision was subsequently timely issued on May 6, 2004.2 As a result of plaintiff’s

decision to file suit prior to receiving the Director’s Level decision, dismissal is required. Id.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available

administrative remedies, filed February 2, 2005, be GRANTED; and

2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), this action be dismissed, without prejudice.

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)(l). 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 1:04-cv-05612-REC-LJO Document 33 Filed 05/16/05 Page 4 of 5
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

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 13, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05612-REC-LJO Document 33 Filed 05/16/05 Page 5 of 5