Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00108-11/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

27

28 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on December 20, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 18.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LENT N. KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. TRACY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00108-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED, AND THIS

ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 21)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Lent N. King (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

complaint, filed February 1, 2006, against defendant Gomez (“defendant”) for use of excessive

physical force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On March 5, 2007, defendant filed a motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust and for failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Plaintiff filed

an opposition on May 14, 2007, and defendant filed a reply on May 17, 2007.1

B. Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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

Case 1:06-cv-00108-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 4
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

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life,

Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative

defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.

Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The failure to

exhaust nonjudicial administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject to an unenumerated

Rule 12(b) motion, rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza

v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curium)).

In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the court

concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

C. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2007). The process is initiated by submitting

a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal

level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s

Level.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being

appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). In order to satisfy section

1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to

filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

Defendant argues that he is entitled to dismissal because plaintiff failed to exhaust the inmate

appeals process. In support of his motion, defendant submits evidence that plaintiff did not file an

Case 1:06-cv-00108-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 4
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

appeal at any level of review. (Doc. 21, Castillo Dec. ¶7; Grannis Dec., ¶5.) Although plaintiff did

submit an appeal to the Ombudsman’s Office, it was returned to him with instructions to submit the

appeal to the appeals office. (Castillo Dec., ¶6.)

Defendant has met his burden as the party moving for dismissal. The burden therefore shifts

to plaintiff to set forth evidence demonstrating that he exhausted the available administrative

remedies. 

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that he filed an inmate complaint against defendant on

November 13, 2003, and that after receiving no response, he addressed his concerns to the

Ombudsman, Warden Scribner, and the appeals coordinator, but his appeal was rejected, fulfilling

the exhaustion requirement. In support of his opposition, plaintiff submits his declaration that he

timely filed an inmate appeal on November 13, 2003, copies of letters to Warden Scribner and the

appeals coordinator dated June 5, 2005, and a copy of the screening notice rejecting his appeal on

June 11, 2005, as untimely. (Doc. 23, pgs. 5, 6, 11, & 17, ¶7.)

Plaintiff’s bare assertion that he filed an inmate appeal is insufficient to defeat defendant’s

motion. “[Proper] exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary,” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct.

2378, 2382 (2006), and “[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and

other critical procedural rules . . . ,” id. at 2386. The court is mindful that the failure to respond to

a properly filed grievance may result in a finding that exhaustion occurred. Lewis v. Washington,

300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (when prison officials fail to respond, the remedy becomes

unavailable, and exhaustion occurs); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. 2001) (district

court did not err when it declined to dismiss claim for failure to exhaust where prison failed to

respond to grievance); see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 n.18 (9th Cir. 2005). Here,

however, plaintiff has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that he properly filed an appeal on

November 13, 2003, by complying with all the applicable procedural rules. Plaintiff’s letters to

Warden Scribner and the appeals coordinator are of no assistance to him in this matter because those

attempts were initiated more than a year and a half after plaintiff allegedly submitted an appeal of

defendant’s misconduct. At that juncture in time, the appeals coordinator properly rejected the

///

Case 1:06-cv-00108-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

 appeal as untimely, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.6(c), and an untimely appeal does not satisfy the

exhaustion requirement, Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at 2382.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendant’s motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed March 5, 2007, be GRANTED, and this action be dismissed,

without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00108-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/25/07 Page 4 of 4