Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00669/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00669-6/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

Plaintiff incorrectly spelled defendant Tuggles’ name in the complaint. In 1

addition, he also misspelled defendant Clemens’ name as “Clemmons.” The Clerk of the Court

shall update the docket to reflect these correct spellings. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL SMITH, No. CIV S-06-0669-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J. TUGGLES, et al., 1

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) based

on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00669-FCD-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 6
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

I. BACKGROUND

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on April 28,

2006. Plaintiff names the following as defendants: J. Tuggles; F. Clemens; Joe Flans; and Karen

Wong. Plaintiff claims that he and other inmates are forced to work under unsafe conditions. 

Plaintiff states that he is a member of the kitchen clean-up crew and that he is being exposed to

toxic substances on a daily basis and that he was never given any training in handling these

substances. Plaintiff also states that he was not provided with appropriate protective equipment. 

Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of exposure to these hazardous substances, the skin on his hands

began to peel off severely and that other inmates developed bad rashes. 

Plaintiff states that defendants Tuggles and Clemens were made aware of the

above, but said that plaintiff would need to obtain a “chrono” from the medical staff to the effect

that he could not work with the chemicals. According to plaintiff, the medical staff informed

defendant Clemens that such chronos are not issued and that the kitchen officers need to approve

plaintiff for a job transfer or plaintiff needs to quit the job. Plaintiff also asserts, however, that if

he quit his job he would have been guilty of a rules violation. He also asserts that defendant

Clemens would not approve a job transfer. Finally, plaintiff alleges that each named defendant

was aware of the health hazards associated with toxic substances in the kitchen and the

unavailability of safety equipment and training. 

As to exhaustion, plaintiff states that he did not file his own grievance concerning

his claims. He states, however, that inmate Black – who also worked in the prison kitchen –

filed group grievances on behalf of all the kitchen inmates, including plaintiff. According to

plaintiff, the group nature of Black’s grievances was revealed by use of the words “we,” “us,”

and “the inmate workers.” 

Plaintiff seeks “exemplary damages.” 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00669-FCD-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 6
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 a motion to dismiss as 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 has failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies. Specifically, they assert that the grievances filed by inmate

Black were insufficient to constitute a group grievance including plaintiff because it did not

comply with the requirements in California’s regulations for group inmate grievances. 

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-00669-FCD-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 6
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

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. In California, inmates “may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or

policy which they can demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). 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). If a group of inmates intend to appeal the same decision or action,

one grievance form is used and a list of the participating inmates must be attached. The list must

be legible and state the inmates’ names, departmental identification numbers, and housing

assignment. The form must also be signed by all participating inmates. Currently, California

regulations do not contain any provision specifying who must be named in the grievance. 

In support of their motion, defendants have provided the court with the

declarations of B. Gentry, the Appeals Coordinator, and N. Grannis, the chief of the Inmate

Appeals Branch, concerning inmate Black’s grievances. Gentry states that neither grievance was

considered as a group grievance because they did not comply with the requirement that all other

affected inmates be listed and that the list be legible and contain the signatures, names, ID

Case 2:06-cv-00669-FCD-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/05/07 Page 4 of 6
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

numbers, and housing assignments of all affected inmates. Grannis confirms that plaintiff never

filed his own grievance concerning his claims. 

In addition, the court has reviewed inmate Black’s actual grievances, which

plaintiff attached to the first amended complaint. Attached to one of the grievances is a list of 10

inmates who are “involved in the matter.” The list includes plaintiff. The list also includes the

prison identification numbers of each inmate. Following this list is a questionnaire of nine

questions regarding working conditions in the prison kitchen, and following that are several

sheets containing the inmates’ hand-written yes or no responses and the inmates’ signatures. In

particular, plaintiff’s signature is on these additional pages. These pages do not, however, list

any of the inmates’ housing assignments. 

In his opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiff states:

The defendants and counsel do not disagree that within the body of

[inmate] Black’s . . . grievances, [he] states I, Myself and several other

guys on the crew have been affected by . . . volatile chemical. [sic].

This action should be deem exhausted as is require . . . [sic].

The court cannot, however, deem the additional pages described above to be in compliance with

California’s regulations for group inmate grievances. As an independently sufficient reason to

reach this conclusion, it is undisputed that none of the inmates’ housing assignments were

provided. Therefore, inmate Black’s grievances do not comply with all of procedural rules for

group grievances. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The court agrees with defendants and finds that plaintiff has failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. Specifically, it is undisputed that

plaintiff did not file his own grievance. It is also undisputed that plaintiff’s allegation of

exhaustion is based on inmate Black’s grievances. Finally, the court finds that inmate Black’s

grievances do not satisfy the procedural rules for group grievances. Therefore, inmate Black’s

Case 2:06-cv-00669-FCD-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/05/07 Page 5 of 6
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

grievances concern only him and no other inmates. 

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 2:06-cv-00669-FCD-CMK Document 22 Filed 03/05/07 Page 6 of 6