Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00150/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00150-7/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

27

28 Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain any other claims for relief which are cognizable under 1

section 1983.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00150-AWI-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

BE GRANTED AND THIS ACTION BE

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(Doc. 27)

I. Findings and Recommendations - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Cedric Greene (“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 amended complaint, filed August 24, 2005, against defendants Weaver, DelaRosa,

Stebner, and Rivera (“defendants”) for retaliation, based on the allegation that defendants segregated

plaintiff for one-hundred ninety-three days after he complained in writing about a correctional

officer. On September 18, 2006, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil 1

Procedure 12(b), defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the 

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00150-AWI -SMS Document 37 Filed 10/25/06 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

27

28 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 2

on May 25, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 18.)

2

available administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on September 29,

2006, and defendants filed a reply on October 4, 2006.2

B. Exhaustion Requirement

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

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and

prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the

prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

Exhaustion of the prison’s administrative process must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 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.

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. The process isinitiated by submitting a CDC

Case 1:05-cv-00150-AWI -SMS Document 37 Filed 10/25/06 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

27

28

3

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).

Defendants argue they are entitled to dismissal of this action because plaintiff failed to

exhaust his retaliation claim. Defendants contend that plaintiff’s inmate appeal attached to his

amended complaint as evidence he exhausted neither grieved the retaliation claim against them nor

demonstrated exhaustion, as the appeal was screened out. (Doc. 14, Amend. Comp., Attach.)

Further, defendants contends that plaintiff did not file an appeal grieving his retaliation claim, and

two appeals plaintiff did file concerning prison conditions were not pursued beyond the first level

of review. (Doc. 27, Motion, Exhibit B, Ojeda Dec., ¶5.) The one appeal plaintiff pursued to the

Director’s Level of review concerned possession of controlled medication. (Id., Exhibit C, Grannis

Dec., ¶¶7, 8.)

Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion on the ground that his screened out appeal demonstrates

that he exhausted. (Doc. 29, Opp.) Plaintiff contends that screened out appeals may not be appealed

and he could not move forward with the process. (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that the appeal placed

prison officials on notice as to his claim. (Id.)

First, the Court agrees with defendants that the appeal submitted by plaintiff did not grieve

the claim against them in this action. Plaintiff is proceeding on his claim that defendants retaliated

against him for complaining about a fellow officer by placing him in administrative segregation from

October 6, 2003, to April 15, 2004. In his appeal, dated April 2, 2004, plaintiff set forth his

entitlement to time credits while in administrative segregation, and requested he be awarded time

credits and released from segregation. In section D of the appeal, dated August 11, 2005, plaintiff

later contended he was segregated “illegally.” Neither section completed by plaintiff satisfies the

exhaustion requirement with respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim, as there is nary a mention that

plaintiff was retaliated against for complaining about an officer. Further, plaintiff is required to

exhaust prior to filing suit, so his attempt to pursue the appeal to a formal level on August 11, 2005,

Case 1:05-cv-00150-AWI -SMS Document 37 Filed 10/25/06 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

27

28 Presumably Correctional Counselor. 3

4

more than a year after he originally submitted the appeal, would not satisfy the exhaustion

requirement in any event, as it occurred after suit was filed. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

Second, plaintiff’s appeal was screened out on April 7, 2004. Plaintiff was informed that he

had not attempted to informally resolve his appeal, that he must send a GA22 to his CC , and that 3

all appeals must be signed. At the time plaintiff filed his amended complaint, it was the law of this

Circuit that exhaustion occurred when an inmate’s appeal was barred by the appeals coordinator on

procedural grounds and “no further level of appeal remained in the state prison’s internal appeals

process.” Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005). Subsequently, United States

Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo and held that “proper exhaustion of

administrative remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion requirement may not be satisfied “by filing

an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. 2378,

2382 (2006) (emphasis added). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines

and other critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. at 2386. 

Receipt of the decision to screen out plaintiff’s appeal did not constitute exhaustion and

thereby relieve plaintiff of his obligation to follow the proper procedure. Pursuant the Supreme

Court’s decision in Ngo, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies

as mandated by section 1997e(a).

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff did not exhaust the available

administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed September 18, 2006, be GRANTED, and this action be

dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative

remedies. 

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

Case 1:05-cv-00150-AWI -SMS Document 37 Filed 10/25/06 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

27

28

5

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: October 25, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00150-AWI -SMS Document 37 Filed 10/25/06 Page 5 of 5