Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00180/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00180-5/pdf.json

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

MANUEL A. GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MASON; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-180 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Manuel A. Gonzalez is now before the

court for consideration of several motions. The motions now pending are (1) defendants' motion

to dismiss, (2) another defendant's motion to join in that motion to dismiss, (3) plaintiff's motion

for leave to file a supplemental complaint, (4) plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a

reply in support of his motion to file a supplemental complaint, and (5) plaintiff's discovery

motion. For the reasons discussed herein, the court determines that the plaintiff may not file a

supplemental complaint and that administrative remedies were not exhausted for any of the

claims in the amended complaint. The action will be dismissed. 

BACKGROUND

In order to consider the pending motions, it is necessary to understand the scope of the

action as alleged in the amended complaint. The court earlier found that the amended complaint

stated five claims for relief against 25 defendants regarding events that occurred at Salinas

Valley State Prison in June 2003 and on March 15, 2004.

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 68 Filed 05/15/08 Page 1 of 8
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

 In Claim 1, Gonzalez alleged that several defendants used excessive force on him (or

directed the use of excessive force on him) after he caused some spit to fly in the direction of

committee members at a committee hearing. 

In Claim 2, Gonzalez alleged that several defendants were deliberately indifferent to his

medical needs by failing to provide necessary medical care after he was assaulted as alleged in

Claim 1. 

In Claim 3, Gonzalez alleged that several defendants were deliberately indifferent to a

risk to his safety when they caused him to be housed in the general population after his arrival

at the prison on June 3, 2003 until June 24, 2003, even though he was in danger if placed in the

general population. 

In Claim 4, Gonzalez alleged that he was subjected to excessive force on June 4, 2003,

when, after he objected to a particular cell placement, two correctional officers "attempted to

drag [him] and then slammed [him] repeatedly" to put him in a cell. Amended Complaint, p.

18.

In Claim 5, Gonzalez alleged that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment on

March 15, 2004, when he was placed in a stand-up cage for over six hours and his requests use

a bathroom were refused. Because he was not allowed to use a bathroom, he had to urinate and

defecate on himself and stand in the waste. 

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Motion To File A Supplemental Complaint

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. The proposed

supplemental complaint would add seven new claims and many new defendants. The acts and

omissions giving rise to the claims in the supplemental complaint occurred at the California

Correctional Institute in Tehachapi and at Calipatria State Prison. The court understands the

supplemental complaint to be an effort to add new claims to the action rather than to replace the

claims pled in the amended complaint, as respondent had suggested. The claims and defendants

are entirely distinct from and unrelated to the claims asserted against the existing defendants.

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 68 Filed 05/15/08 Page 2 of 8
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

That the supplemental complaint is quite different from the existing pleading is evident from

plaintiff's request that the court first allow the supplemental complaint and then order it

transferred to the Southern District of California. See Plaintiff's "Request Court Grant Leave

To File A 'Supplemental Complaint,'" p. 1 (Docket # 62.) Plaintiff apparently is trying to

piggyback a second action onto the existing one in which he has been granted in forma pauperis

status, see id. perhaps to avoid another filing fee. Avoidance of a filing fee does not provide

good cause for the filing of a supplemental complaint. 

Although Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes supplemental

pleadings, "it cannot be used to introduce a 'separate, distinct and new cause of action.'" Planned

Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).

Additionally, a proposed supplemental pleading is still subject to other Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, including Rule 20. Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

all persons "may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly,

severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact

common to all defendants will arise in the action." 

The supplemental complaint will not be permitted because it attempts to introduce

separate, distinct and new claims from those in the existing pleading and does not satisfy Rule

20(a). The defendants in the supplemental complaint are different from those in the amended

complaint. The supplemental complaint alleges seven new and different claims rather than

supplementing or updating the five existing claims. In particular, the medical and dental care

claims in the supplemental complaint do not relate to the existing claims because the duty to

provide medical and dental care does not depend on how the inmate came to need such care.

The acts and omissions complained of in the supplemental complaint occurred at the Tehachapi

and Calipatria, whereas the events complained of in the amended complaint occurred at Salinas

Valley. There are not questions of law or fact common to both the new and old defendants. For

all these reasons, Gonzalez' motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint is DENIED.

(Docket # 62.) This denial is without prejudice to Gonzalez filing a new civil rights action in

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 68 Filed 05/15/08 Page 3 of 8
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

The motion to dismiss was originally filed by 16 defendants. Defendant Morris was

served with process later and then moved to join in the motion to dismiss. The motion for

joinder in the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket # 35.) 

There are eight other defendants who have not yet appeared in this action, whether due

to lack of adequate service of process or otherwise. The exhaustion problem exists with regard

to all claims and all defendants, and the ground for dismissal applies to all defendants. It would

be a waste of judicial resources to require service of the unserved defendants at this point just

so they could join in the motion to dismiss. 

4

a proper venue in which he asserts the claims.

B. Defendants' Motion To Dismiss1

"No 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

State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal administratively "any

departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely

affecting their welfare." See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available

administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of

appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3)

second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third level appeal to the Director

of the California Department of Corrections. See id. § 3084.5; Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S. Ct.

2378, 2383 (2006); Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997).

Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534

U.S. 516, 524 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation omitted). Even

when 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). The statute

requires "proper exhaustion" of available administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S. Ct. 2378, 2387 (2006).

A prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a matter in abatement.

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 68 Filed 05/15/08 Page 4 of 8
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

Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion, and may do so by

way of an unenumerated Rule12(b) motion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

2003). "In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court

may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact." Id. at 1119-20, citing Ritza

v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988). The court

can decide factual issues in a jurisdictional or related type of motion because there is no right

to a jury trial as to that portion of the case, unlike the merits of the case (where there is a right

to a jury trial). See id. Wyatt and Ritza allow this court to resolve factual disputes, but only

with regard to the exhaustion issue. 

A prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement "by filing of an untimely or

otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal." Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S. Ct. at 2382. A prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with

the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal

court. See id. at 2384. 

Gonzalez did not exhaust the administrative remedies available to him as to any of the

five claims before he filed this action. No inmate appeal filed by him ever received a director's

level decision. He offers numerous excuses, but none persuade the court.

Gonzalez argues that it was permissible for him to bypass the lower levels of inmate

appeal review and go directly to the director's level with his appeal. See Plaintiff's Opposition,

p. 5 and Exhs. C-E, G. The regulation that describes the levels of appeal review provides for an

informal level, followed by a first level, followed by a second level, followed by the third (i.e.,

director's) level. The regulation specifically states that, except for appeals regarding transfer to

a mental institution, the "second formal level" "shall be completed prior to the appellant filing

at the third formal level." 15 Cal. Code § 3084.5(c). Gonzalez did not complete the second level

before filing at the third level. Gonzalez's decision to skip the lower levels and send his appeals

directly to the director's level did not exhaust his claims. These were procedurally defective and

did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See Ngo, 126 S. Ct. at 2382. These appeals did not

satisfy the exhaustion requirement for the separate and additional reason that Gonzalez did not

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 68 Filed 05/15/08 Page 5 of 8
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

receive directors' level decisions before he filed this action on January 10, 2007. See, e.g.,

Opposition, Exhs. C-E, G, M. Dismissal is required unless the prisoner exhausted his available

administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is

pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see Vaden v. Summerhill,

449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006).

 Gonzalez next argues that his effort to pursue his grievance through the internal affairs

office satisfied the exhaustion requirement. That effort did not satisfy the exhaustion

requirement because it was procedurally defective. In fact, the response he received was a

direction to comply with the inmate appeals procedure as he had been instructed. See

Opposition, Exh. H. 

Gonzalez next argues that exhaustion is shown because some of his allegations of staff

misconduct were referred for investigation according to a state court order that recounts the

state's response to Gonzalez's state habeas petition that asserted claims for incidents on March

15, 2004 (i.e., his placement in a holding cell for 6 hours as well as an allegedly improper cell

search during which personal items were taken). Opposition Brief, Exh. L. This exhibit does

not establish exhaustion for two reasons. First, because Gonzalez did not submit the underlying

documents to which the order referred, it is not clear whether the staff misconduct being

investigated pertained to prison staff's conduct in putting him in a holding cell or in searching

his cell or both. Second, the mere fact that an investigation has been undertaken does not

necessarily mean that there are no further administrative remedies are available. The obligation

to exhaust persists as long as some remedy is available; when that is no longer the case, the

prisoner need not further pursue the grievance. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir.

2005). A prisoner need not exhaust further levels of review once he has either received all the

remedies that are “available” at an intermediate level of review, or has been reliably informed

by an administrator that no more remedies are available. Id. at 935. For instance, an inmate

complaining about staff misconduct was deemed to have exhausted all available remedies,

because once an investigation had been ordered at the second formal level under California’s

“staff complaint” process, the authorities lacked any remaining authority to act on the subject

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 68 Filed 05/15/08 Page 6 of 8
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

To the extent Gonzalez's argument is that exhaustion should be excused because he was

being subjected to retaliation, the argument is unpersuasive as it does not explain why he was

able to file 69 inmate appeals about other topics but not about the five claims asserted in the

amended complaint. 

7

of the complaint. Id. at 937-40 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 736 n.4). By contrast, an inmate who

was informed at the second formal level that his administrative appeal would be treated as a staff

complaint, that any non-staff claims should be separately appealed, that if he were dissatisfied

further review was available, and that the appeal was denied, rather than partially granted as with

the first inmate, did not exhaust all available remedies. Brown, 422 F.3d at 940-43. Gonzalez

has failed to provide any evidence that his case was the former situation instead of the latter

situation described in Brown. 

Gonzalez next appears to argue that exhaustion should be excused because he submitted

several inmate appeals that he contends were lost. Opposition, pp. 6-72

 and Exh. M. The

assertion by Gonzalez is not credible in light of the record. Gonzalez provides no detail as to

when he filed these allegedly lost or discarded inmate appeals, and what he did to follow up on

them at the time they went missing. Defendants have presented evidence showing that Gonzalez

is a frequent filer of inmate appeals – having filed at least 69 of them since 2003, see Variz Decl.

Exh. A; Emigh Decl., Exh. C – of which many were rejected for procedural problems while

some received decisions on the merits. It defies reason to believe that prison officials processed

so many other inmate appeals from Gonzalez while discarding the exact ones Gonzalez needs

to show exhaustion for the claims he now asserts. It is even less believable that prison officials

at other prisons to which he was transferred kept up the same practice. 

Gonzalez also contends that he satisfied the exhaustion requirement "by placing 'prison

officials on "notice" of the complaints filed in this civil rights action.'" Opposition, p. 2. Putting

prison officials on notice of claims by means other than the administrative appeal system does

not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. The administrative appeal system set up for inmates in

the CDCR must be complied with to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. 

A review of the record shows that Gonzalez was informed repeatedly in a straightforward

manner that he had to follow the established inmate appeal procedures to present his inmate

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 68 Filed 05/15/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8

appeal. See Opposition Exhs. C-E, H. He chose not to do so. Gonzalez never received a

director's level decision on any of his five claims, as required for exhaustion of administrative

remedies by a California prisoner. Defendants have carried their burden to prove that Gonzalez

did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement with regard to his claims. The action must be

dismissed without prejudice. 

C. Discovery Motion

Plaintiff's "motion in 'demand for information'" is DENIED. (Docket # 38.) Discovery

requests are not supposed to be filed with the court, but are instead to be made directly to the

opposing party by serving them on that party's counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing

discovery requests and responses that "must not" be filed with the court until they are used in

the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Also, any discovery request is now moot in light

of the dismissal of this action.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint is DENIED. (Docket # 62.)

Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of his motion for leave to file

a supplemental complaint is GRANTED. (Docket # 66.) The court has read and considered

plaintiff's reply brief filed on May 5, 2008. 

Plaintiff's "motion in 'demand for information'" is DENIED. (Docket # 38.)

Defendant Morris' motion for joinder in the motion to dismiss filed by other defendants

is GRANTED. (Docket # 35.) Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED because plaintiff

failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this action. (Docket # 20.) This action

is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00180-SI Document 68 Filed 05/15/08 Page 8 of 8