Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02379/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02379-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWIN GOLDEN, No. CIV S-03-2379-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GUERRERO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to

dismiss (Doc. 31) based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing

suit. 

I. BACKGROUND

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on December

29, 2005. Plaintiff claims that, on July 14, 2003, he was notified by defendant Kyte that he

would be charged with a rules violation for being out of bounds on the exercise yard. Plaintiff

asserts that he overheard a conversation where defendant Kyte told defendant Guerrero that 

Case 2:03-cv-02379-MCE -CMK Document 34 Filed 03/05/07 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

2

“. . . plaintiff is a new ass hole on the yard, and needs to be taught the rules.” Plaintiff states that,

immediately following this conversation, defendant Guerrero conducted a search of plaintiff’s

cell and confiscated items of personal property. When plaintiff asked why the items were being

taken away, defendant Guerrero allegedly replied: “This is what happens when you act like an

ass on the yard.” Plaintiff asserts that he filed an inmate grievance concerning this incident. 

Plaintiff states that he was told that prison officers do not have time to be dealing with

“crybabies.” Plaintiff ultimately withdrew his grievance. Plaintiff states that, on September 10,

2003, defendant Guerrero again confiscated his property for no reason. Plaintiff alleges that this

property has never been recovered. 

Plaintiff next claims that, on November 3, 2003, he spoke with defendant Moser,

who is a facility captain. Plaintiff states that he complained of defendant Guerrero’s alleged

retaliatory conduct. According to plaintiff, defendant Moser said he would look into the

situation. 

Next, plaintiff alleges that, on November 12, 2003, defendant Guerrero offered to

return a television set he had previously confiscated as a “trade” for plaintiff consenting to a

reassignment of cellmates. Specifically, plaintiff claims that defendant Guerrero attempted to

create tension within the prison’s population of Mexican inmates by moving “Northern

Mexican” inmates into proximity with rival “Southern Mexican” inmates. Plaintiff asserts that

he and 38 other inmates complained that this action was racially motivated. 

Finally, plaintiff alleges that, during an appeal interview conducted on February

18, 2004, he informed prison officials that he has been subject to numerous rules violation

“write-ups” by defendant Newton in retaliation for the charges he made against him on January

28, 2004. 

Plaintiff alleges that the foregoing demonstrates that defendants retaliated against

him for pursuing his rights, in violation of the First Amendment. 

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-02379-MCE -CMK Document 34 Filed 03/05/07 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

3

II. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

A motion to dismiss for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies is properly

the subject of an unenumerated motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). See Wyatt

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

exhaust non-judicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleading and decide disputed

issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. If the court concludes that administrative remedies have not been

exhausted, the unexhausted claim should be dismissed without prejudice. See id. at 1120. 

III. DISCUSSION

In their motion to dismiss, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Specifically, while defendants admit

that plaintiff filed inmate grievances concerning the claims raised in the complaint (except as

against defendant Newton), they argue that plaintiff did not pursue those grievances through the

final levels of administrative review and, for this reason, the exhaustion process was not

complete when the action was filed. 

Prisoners seeking relief under § 1983 must exhaust all available administrative

remedies prior to bringing suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This requirement is mandatory

regardless of the relief sought. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (overruling

Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999)). Because exhaustion must precede the filing of

the complaint, compliance with § 1997e(a) is not achieved by exhausting administrative

remedies while the lawsuit is pending. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.

2002). The Supreme Court recently addressed the exhaustion requirement in Jones v. Bock, 127

S.Ct. 910 (2007), and held: (1) prisoners are not required to specially plead or demonstrate

exhaustion in the complaint because lack of exhaustion is an affirmative defense which must be

pleaded and proved by the defendants; (2) an individual named as a defendant does not

necessarily need to be named in the grievance process for exhaustion to be considered adequate

Case 2:03-cv-02379-MCE -CMK Document 34 Filed 03/05/07 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

4

because the applicable procedural rules that a prisoner must follow are defined by the particular

grievance process, not by the PLRA; and (3) the PLRA does not require dismissal of the entire

complaint if only some, but not all, claims are unexhausted. The Supreme Court also held in

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2385-88 (2006), that, in order to exhaust administrative

remedies, the prisoner must comply with all of the prison system’s procedural rules and that

partial compliance is not enough.

A prison inmate in California satisfies the administrative exhaustion requirement

by following the procedures set forth in §§ 3084.1-3084.7 of Title 15 of the California Code of

Regulations. These regulations require the prisoner to proceed through several levels of appeal: 

(1) informal resolution; (2) formal appeal; (3) second level appeal to institution head; (4) third

level appeal to the director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. A

decision at the third formal level, which is also referred to as the director’s level, is not

appealable and concludes a prisoner’s departmental administrative remedy. See Cal. Code Regs.

tit. 15, §§ 3084.1(a) and 3084.5(e)(2). Departmental appeals coordinators may summarily deny

a prisoner’s untimely administrative appeal. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.3(c)(6) and

3084.6(c). Currently, California regulations do not contain any provision specifying who must

be named in the grievance. 

In support of their motion, defendants provide the court with the declarations of

S. Cervantes, the Appeals Coordinator, and N. Grannis, the chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch. 

They also provide authenticated copies of plaintiff’s prison grievances and responses thereto. 

These documents reflect that, as to the claims raised in this lawsuit, plaintiff did not pursue any

grievance beyond the second level. In opposition, plaintiff argues:

. . . Plaintiff’s appeal was partially granted and no further remedy

was available. The Defendants were given a fair opportunity to consider,

and address plaintiff’s grievance, and failed to do so. The Defendants

should not be allowed to dismiss on the benefits of exhaustion. The

Defendants are deliberately attempting to bypass the crux of plaintiff’s

complaint. For these reasons plaintiff’s complaint should not be dismissed

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Case 2:03-cv-02379-MCE -CMK Document 34 Filed 03/05/07 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

5

Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. To the extent he is arguing that he did not

need to exhaust past the second level because the relief he was seeking was not available beyond

that level, the Supreme Court has rejected this argument in Booth – prisoners must exhaust

through all levels regardless of the relief available. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff is arguing

that he substantially complied with the exhaustion process by giving defendants fair notice of his

claims, this argument has also been rejected by the Supreme Court. In Woodford, the Court

made it clear that partial compliance is not enough – the prisoner must follow all the procedural

rules for filing grievances. In this case, California regulations require inmates to pursue their

grievances through the Director’s level of review. It is undisputed that plaintiff did not do so in

this case. Therefore, the court must agree with defendants that plaintiff failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendants’ motion to

dismiss be granted and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this

file.

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 20 days

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

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: March 2, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02379-MCE -CMK Document 34 Filed 03/05/07 Page 5 of 5