Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02116/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02116-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL DWAYNE RODGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREG MUNKS, San Mateo County Sheriff, 

et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 13-2116 MEJ (pr)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

Doc. No. 35

On May 8, 2013, plaintiff Russell Dwayne Rodgers filed this pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of conditions at the San Mateo County Maguire

Correctional Facility, where he is incarcerated. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. 

On June 7, 2012, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. On June 18,

2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“FAC”). On June 28, 2013, the Court issued an

Order of Partial Service, finding that plaintiff’s due process claim was not cognizable and

that his Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of hygiene supplies was cognizable. 

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants denied him basic hygiene supplies for a period

of 2 to 3 months, starting around February 23, 2013. (FAC at 2.) Plaintiff alleges this led to

bad health (bleeding gums, rashes, depression) and bad hygiene (bad breath, musty/bad odor)

as well as distancing, loss of companions, and embarrassment. (FAC at 2.) Plaintiff alleges

that he did not have a toothbrush, toothpaste, or soap for the entire month of May 2013. 

(FAC at 3.) Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied clean laundry. (FAC at 2.) The Court

ordered service of the Eighth Amendment claim on defendants Sheriff Munks, Lt. Kankel,

Lt. Copeland, and Sgt. Justice. 

Case 3:13-cv-02116-MEJ Document 64 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff has filed an

opposition, and defendants have filed a reply.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to

provide that “[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). Although previously within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion

in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,

524 (2002). The PLRA exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of all available

administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). Moreover, those

remedies “need not meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’”

Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citation omitted). Even where the prisoner seeks relief not available

in grievance proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Id.;

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all inmate

lawsuits pertaining to prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular

episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at

532. The PLRA does not require exhaustion when circumstances render administrative

remedies “effectively unavailable.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, and is properly brought in

an “unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than [in] a motion for summary judgment.” 

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 1997e(a), 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 not exhausted the jail’s or prison’s administrative process, the proper remedy is

Case 3:13-cv-02116-MEJ Document 64 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

dismissal without prejudice. Id.

B. County Jail Procedures

Section 1073 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations provides county jail

inmates with a right to “appeal and have resolved grievances” relating to their confinement. 

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 1073. Pursuant to Section 1073, the San Mateo County Maguire

Correctional Facility (“MCF”) has established a Prisoner Grievance System. (Hanlon Decl. 

¶ 5, Ex. 1.) It is undisputed that the administrative remedies available to plaintiff and at issue

here are those of the San Mateo County MCF.

The MCF Prisoner Grievance System requires an inmate to first attempt to resolve a

grievance informally with a line staff member. (Id.) If the problem cannot be resolved on

the staff level, the inmate must complete the top portion of the Inmate Grievance Form. 

(Hanlon Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, Ex. 1.) The form is given to a staff member who responds at the staff

level in writing on the second portion of the form and signs it. (Id.) The form is then given

to the staff member’s supervisor, usually the Housing Sergeant on duty, who responds in

writing on the third portion of the form and signs it. (Id.) The form is then given to the

Watch Commander (a lieutenant), who reviews and responds on the last portion of the form

and signs it. (Id.) The completed form is then returned to the inmate and a hard copy is kept

by jail administration and filed in the facility administration’s grievances file. (Id.)

If an inmate desires to appeal the Watch Commander’s decision, he or she must write

an appeal letter on plain or ruled white paper (not a grievance form) to the Corrections

Division Captain, who will review the appeal letter and the grievance with the Watch

Commander’s response. (Id.) The appeal letter on plain or ruled white paper is sent in an

envelope to the Corrections Division Captain at 330 Bradford Street. Paper and envelope are

provided by staff upon an inmate’s request. (Id.) The Corrections Division Captain must

give a written response to the inmate within 15 business days of receipt of the letter. (Id.) A

hard copy of the appeal letter and the response to the appeal are kept in the facility

administration’s grievance and appeal files, and a record of each appeal letter is also entered

and maintained on an electronic list. (Id.) The appeal to the Corrections Division Captain is

Case 3:13-cv-02116-MEJ Document 64 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 It appears that at the time of the claims alleged in Case No. C 07-00520 (SBA) (PR),

the San Mateo County Jail’s Corrections Division Captain was referred to as “Facility

Commander.” (See id.)

4

the final level of appeal required by the MCF Prisoner Grievance System. (Id.)

Plaintiff had constructive knowledge of the grievance procedures because a copy is

posted in the center of each housing pod at MCF so that it is readily accessible to inmates. 

(Hanlon Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 2.) Furthermore, plaintiff had actual knowledge of the grievance

procedures and exhaustion requirement because he submitted numerous grievances during

his incarceration in 2013 as well as numerous grievances and appeals during prior

incarcerations at the San Mateo County Jail. (Hanlon Decl. ¶¶ 10, 14; Exs. 5, 6, 7.) Finally,

plaintiff had actual knowledge of the grievance procedures and exhaustion requirement due

to his experience in filing previous civil suits in this court against San Mateo County sheriff’s

deputies. See Rodgers v. Horsley, Case No. C 00-00996 (SBA) (PR) and Rodgers v.

Horsley, Case No. C 07-00520 (SBA) (PR). In fact, in Case No. C 07-00520 (SBA) (PR),

this court informed plaintiff that he should present all claims he wished to bring in federal

court to the jail’s appeal process through to the Facility Commander’s level of review before

actually raising those claims in a Section 1983 action. (March 31, 2010 Order in Case No. C

07-00520 (SBA) (PR) at 6-7, 15.)1

C. Plaintiff’s Grievances

Defendants have submitted evidence that the Corrections Division Captain for MCF

never received an appeal of a grievance relating to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

regarding the alleged deprivation of hygiene supplies or laundry. (See Hanlon Decl. ¶¶ 9, 13,

Ex. 5.) Plaintiff does not deny that he failed to submit an appeal to the Corrections Division

Captain as required to exhaust administrative remedies. He mounts two arguments in his

opposition.

First, plaintiff contends that he has properly exhausted because “he has been given

grievance forms and direction to use them for (1st and 2nd steps) final review grievances, and

it has been accepted practice (for years).” (Dkt. 45 at 4.) Plaintiff submits various grievance

Case 3:13-cv-02116-MEJ Document 64 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

forms that pertained to hygiene supplies and that received a response from the Watch

Commander. (See e.g., Dkt. 45 at 13, 14, 15, 17.) Plaintiff provides no evidence, however,

that he was ever definitively informed by jail staff that the Watch Commander’s level of

review was the final level of review for exhaustion purposes. Plaintiff points to a

memorandum he received from Lieutenant Facility Commander Bill Bonifacio on October 3,

2013 in response to a letter that plaintiff sent directly to Sheriff Munks regarding his housing

in administrative segregation. (Dkt. 42; Bonifacio Decl. ¶ 5, Exs. 1-2.) The letter states:

The Sheriff’s Office is in receipt of your letter dated 9/22/13, in which you

write about your current housing assignment of Administrative Segregation. 

Your letter follows a multitude of grievance forms you’ve submitted on this

topic, forms which have been routinely reviewed and properly addressed by

supervisory and management staff at the facility. The process of regular

reviews of Administrative Housings will continue, as they have been.

(Dkt. 42 at 2.) Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, nothing in the letter demonstrates that use of

a grievance form for final appeals is an “accepted practice.” Furthermore, plaintiff’s letter to

the Sheriff was not directed to the Corrections Division Captain nor did it relate to plaintiff’s

grievances regarding alleged deprivation of hygiene supplies or laundry. (Bonifacio Decl.,

Ex. 1.) Consequently, it is not relevant to whether plaintiff exhausted his administrative

remedies concerning his claims in this action.

Moreover, such an argument is inconsistent with the plain language of the MCF

grievance procedure, which was posted in each pod at MCF. (Hanlon Decl ¶ 6, Ex. 2.) The

procedure clearly states, in relevant part:

Appeals:

If an inmate is dissatisfied, he/she may appeal the Watch Commander’s

decision. The appeal must be made within 10 business days of the Watch

Commander’s Response. Appeal procedure is as follows:

a) The appeal shall be a letter written on plain/ruled white paper. Reference

shall be made to which grievance is being appealed. This is done by including

the “written date” of the appealed grievance. Grievance appeals shall contain a

clear, concise statement explaining the basis for the appeal. If needed, staff

will provide paper and envelope for an appeal.

b) The inmate will complete the appeal, place the appeal in an envelope, and

forward it via jail staff / or U.S. mail to the Correction Division’s Captain at

330 Bradford Street, Rwc. 94063. If asked, the pod officer will make a copy of

the appeal letter for the inmate to be returned prior to the end of shift.

Case 3:13-cv-02116-MEJ Document 64 Filed 01/07/14 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

c) The Correction Division’s Captain will give a written response or an

approved response to the inmate within 15 business days of receipt, including

the reasons if he/she denies the appeal.

(Id. (emphasis added).)

Plaintiff’s argument also conflicts with the fact that he had prior experience with the

grievance procedure, which he used to pursue many other claims at MCJ, including claims

pursued through the final level of appeal. (Hanlon Decl. ¶¶ 10, 14; Exs. 5, 6, 7.) Plaintiff

has previously demonstrated that he is familiar with the grievance and appeal procedure at

MCF, and that he knows how to submit a grievance as well as how to appeal responses to

grievances to the highest and final level. (See id.) Finally, plaintiff’s argument conflicts

with the fact that he is an experienced pro se litigant who, as mentioned above, had actual

knowledge of the exhaustion requirement due to his experience in filing previous civil suits,

in which this court directed him to present each and every claim he wished to bring in federal

court to the jail’s appeals process before filing his federal complaint. See Rodgers v.

Horsley, Case No. C 00-00996 (SBA) (PR) and Rodgers v. Horsley, Case No. C 07-00520

(SBA) (PR). Indeed, plaintiff acknowledged in his original complaint in this action that he

had proceeded only through the Lieutenant (Watch Commander) Level. (See Dkt. 1 at 2.)

Second, plaintiff contends that he properly exhausted because he “wrote/labeled ‘Final

Level’ grievances to ‘Facility Comndr.’ and they were processed, always.” (Dkt. 45 at 3.) 

Plaintiff appears to be referring to various grievance forms, in which he wrote “Final

Response - to - Facility Cmndr.” next to the portion of the form indicating “To: (Watch

Commander).” (See e.g., Dkt. 45 at 13, 17.) However, the fact that plaintiff addressed his

grievance forms to the Facility Commander does not cure his abandonment of these

grievances at the Watch Commander’s level. It is clear from the lower portions of these

forms that they were processed as grievances, not appeals, and were responded to by the

Watch Commander, not the Corrections Division Captain. (See id.) Pursuant to the MCF

grievance procedure, the burden is on the inmate to appeal the Watch Commanders’s

decision to the Corrections Division Captain. (Hanlon Decl. Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 2 at 1.) The

appeal must be “a letter written on plain/ruled white paper” not on a grievance form. (Id.) 

Case 3:13-cv-02116-MEJ Document 64 Filed 01/07/14 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

The Court finds unavailing plaintiff’s argument that addressing the grievance form to

“Facility Cmndr.” should fully exhaust his claims. 

The undisputed evidence clearly indicates that plaintiff did not properly exhaust his

available administrative remedies, and he has not established grounds for excusing the

PLRA’s requirement that he do so. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to judgment based

on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to properly

exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a) is GRANTED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment for defendants and close the file. 

This order terminates Docket No. 35.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

Maria-Elena James

United States Magistrate Judge

January 7, 2014

Case 3:13-cv-02116-MEJ Document 64 Filed 01/07/14 Page 7 of 7