Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00525-11/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

 On May 3, 2006, the court ordered service of process on these defendants, and 1

defendant Mangis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Defendant Mangis was dismissed on

November 20, 2006. Defendant Cole joined the motion to dismiss on October19, 2006. The

motion itself was filed by the other defendants on September 1, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0525 LKK KJM P

vs.

LEE ALEXANDER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Alexander, Madrigal, Kissinger, Hubbard,

McDonald, Peery, Brown, Gunter, Norgaard, Feliciano and Cole (collectively “defendants”) have

filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants argue plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because

1

plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to those claims prior to filing suit,

and that some of plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff opposes

defendants’ motion.

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 45 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 7
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

 To the extent the court does not discuss in these findings and recommendations claims 2

asserted by plaintiff in his complaint, those claims were screened out by the April 5, 2006 order.

2

A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing

suit arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust non-judicial

remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at

1120. If the district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted non-judicial remedies,

the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice. Id.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) regulations provide administrative procedures in the

form of one informal and three formal levels of review to address plaintiff’s claims. See Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.7. Administrative procedures generally are exhausted once a

prisoner has received a “Director’s Level Decision,” or third level review, with respect to his

issues or claims. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. All steps must be completed before a civil

rights action is filed, unless a plaintiff demonstrates a step is unavailable to him; exhaustion

during the pendency of the litigation will not save an action from dismissal. McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendants bear the burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

In this court’s April 5, 2006 order the court indicated that plaintiff’s complaint

states claims upon which relief can be granted under the Eighth Amendment against moving

defendants Alexander, Madrigal, Feliciano, Cole and Kissinger. The court also found that

plaintiff’s complaint states claims upon which relief can be granted under the First Amendment

against moving defendants Alexander, Madrigal, Hubbard, McDonald, Peery, Brown, Gunter and

Norgaard.2

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 45 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 7
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

 The court acknowledges plaintiff’s statements that a total of thirty exhibits are attached 3

to his opposition brief. See “Cover Sheet” (docket no. 36) at 2; see also Opp’n at 16:16. A

careful review of the court’s docket, however, discloses no exhibits on file in connection with the

opposition. 

3

In opposing defendants’ motion, plaintiff suggests that administrative procedures

were unavailable to him because “defendants, their agency and the Director of Corrections []

failed to timely respond[] to several of plaintiff’s submitted grievances.” Opp’n at 16:12-16; see

also Compl. at 3. Plaintiff appears to assert that defendants’ failure to timely respond, in certain

instances at least, qualifies him for an exception to the exhaustion requirement. Opp’n at 16:14. 

As a general argument, plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. The court, however, will consider any

evidence produced by plaintiff demonstrating the unavailability to him of administrative

procedures with respect to any particular grievance. Such an evaluation is best performed

grievance by grievance, as follows. 

In his complaint plaintiff asserts defendants Alexander, Cole, Madrigal and

Brown took action, or failed to take action, between January 21 and January 24, 2004, which

resulted in a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Compl. at 5:18-8:3. Defendants present

evidence indicating plaintiff did not file a grievance with respect to these events. Mot., Ex. A

(Babich Decl.) at ¶¶ 6-7. In his opposition, plaintiff asserts he did file a grievance regarding

these events, but the grievance was not answered. Opp’n (docket no. 38) at 17:4-13. Plaintiff

cites to an exhibit he says supports his assertion, but the exhibit is not attached to plaintiff’s

opposition. In fact, there are no exhibits attached to plaintiff’s opposition or otherwise filed with

the court in connection with the opposition. There is an exhibit attached to the complaint that 3

grieves events between January 21 and 24, 2004, but there is no indication this grievance was

actually filed. See Compl, Ex. K-1. Because plaintiff fails to point to any cognizable evidence

refuting defendants’ showing that any claims arising from the events occurring between January

21 and January 24, 2004 have not been exhausted, the court will recommend that those claims be

dismissed.

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 45 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendant Cole retaliated against plaintiff for

filing an inmate grievance against Cole. Compl. at 9:8-10:3. Plaintiff claims Cole fabricated a

disciplinary report against plaintiff, which resulted in plaintiff losing canteen privileges for 90

days. Id. Defendants present evidence indicating plaintiff failed to file an inmate grievance with

respect to this claim. Babich Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff fails to present any argument or evidence in

opposition. Therefore, the court will recommend that this claim be dismissed. 

Plaintiff alleges that on April 1, 2004, defendant Hubbard failed to submit court

documents in a timely manner on behalf of plaintiff. Compl. at 11:15-12:10. Plaintiff asserts

defendant Hubbard’s actions caused a separate lawsuit filed by plaintiff to be dismissed. Id. 

Defendants present evidence indicating plaintiff failed to file an inmate grievance with respect to

this claim. Babich Decl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff fails to present any evidence in opposition. Opp’n at

19:16-27. Therefore, the court will recommend that this claim be dismissed. 

Next, plaintiff alleges in his complaint that on April 15, 2004 defendant

McDonald failed to modify plaintiff’s term in the Security Housing Unit in retaliation for a

grievance plaintiff filed against Correctional Officer Gillam. Compl. at 14:12-15:11. Defendants

present evidence indicating plaintiff failed to file an inmate grievance with respect to this claim. 

Babich Decl. ¶ 13. Plaintiff fails to present any evidence in opposition. Opp’n at 20:1-9. 

Although he references an exhibit attached to the complaint, that exhibit demonstrates only that

plaintiff exhausted the administrative process with respect to his underlying grievance against

Officer Gillam; the grievance does not cover any subsequent actions of McDonald. See Compl.,

Ex. J. Therefore, the court will recommend that this claim be dismissed. 

Plaintiff alleges that the failure of defendants Norgaard and Gunter to allow

plaintiff to appear telephonically at a status conference concerning a civil action filed by plaintiff

caused that action to be dismissed. Compl. at 15:17-16:7. Defendants present evidence

indicating plaintiff did not file a grievance with respect to this claim. Babich Decl. ¶ 14. 

Plaintiff fails to present any evidence in opposition. Opp’n at 19:16-28. Therefore, the court will

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 45 Filed 08/13/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

recommend that this claim be dismissed. 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Peery retaliated against plaintiff by filing false

disciplinary charges against plaintiff on May 31, 2004. Compl. at 16:8-18:16. Defendants

present evidence indicating plaintiff did not file a grievance with respect to this claim. Babich

Decl. ¶ 15. Although plaintiff says that he did file a grievance and it was granted, he fails to

present any evidence demonstrating as much. Opp’n at 20:10-19. Therefore, the court will

recommend that this claim be dismissed. 

Plaintiff alleges defendants Alexander, Brown and Madrigal violated plaintiff’s

constitutional rights by searching his cell and confiscating certain items on June 5, 2004. Compl.

at 21:1-20. Defendants present evidence indicating that plaintiff filed a grievance concerning the

June 5, 2004 search, but the grievance process was not complete until September 20, 2005,

approximately six months after this case was filed. Mot., Ex. B (Grannis Decl.) ¶ 21 & Ex. B-2. 

Plaintiff does not dispute this, although he does suggest his appeal was not processed in a timely

manner. Opp’n at 18:18-19:2. Because administrative remedies have to be exhausted with

respect to a claim before the claim is filed, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff’s claims arising from

the June 5, 2004 cell search must be dismissed. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1200.

 Plaintiff alleges that on June 12, 2004 defendants Feliciano and Kissinger

subjected plaintiff to excessive force and deprived plaintiff of certain items, which resulted in a

violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. Compl. at 22:17-23:20. Defendants present

evidence indicating plaintiff did not file a grievance with respect to these claims. Babich Decl.

¶ 18. Plaintiff fails to present any evidence in opposition. Opp’n at 18:1-17. Therefore,

plaintiff’s claims arising from events occurring on June 12, 2004 must be dismissed. 

Finally, plaintiff alleges that on July 20, 2004, defendants Gunter and Norgaard

failed to take steps to make it possible for plaintiff to appear telephonically at a hearing in a

court case, which resulted in an adverse ruling in that court case. Compl. at 24:7-25:21. 

Defendants present evidence indicating that plaintiff did not file a grievance with respect to this

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 45 Filed 08/13/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

incident. Babich Decl. ¶ 19. An exhibit attached to plaintiff’s complaint appears to include a

grievance concerning a July 20, 2004 failure to make plaintiff available for a telephonic

conference; the grievance references Norgaard. See Compl., Ex. K-2. However, there is no

indication that the grievance was pursued through the Director’s Level and defendants provide

evidence indicating that it was not. Grannis Decl. ¶ 23; see also Opp’n at 19:21-28. Therefore

the court will recommend that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Gunter and Norgaard arising

from their failure to make plaintiff available for a telephonic conference on July 20, 2004, also be

dismissed. 

Defendants argue in their motion to dismiss that some of plaintiff’s claims should

be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the court

finds that plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to all of the claims

remaining in this action, the court declines to reach this argument. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The September 1, 2006 motion to dismiss filed by defendants Alexander

Madrigal, Kissinger, Hubbard, McDonald, Peery, Brown, Gunter, Norgaard, Feliciano and Cole

be granted; and

2. This case be closed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 45 Filed 08/13/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 10, 2007.

1

wash0525.57

Case 2:05-cv-00525-LKK -KJM Document 45 Filed 08/13/07 Page 7 of 7