Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01524/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01524-9/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD OCHOTORENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01524-DLB-LJO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED IN PART

(Doc. 29)

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

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Richard Ochotorena (“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 November 30, 2005, against defendants D. Adams, J. Reynosa, K.

Curtiss, H. Duncan, J. Fambrough, K. Kalkis. J.M. Astorga, P.A. Rodriguez and Lane

(“defendants”). On April 16, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b). Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 30, 2007 and defendants filed a reply on June

7, 2007.

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-01524-LJO-DLB Document 38 Filed 01/10/08 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

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 ofthe 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 isinitiated 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. 

California’s Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity or its employees

be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, formerly known

as the State Board of Control and still referred to herein as the State Board of Control, no more than

Case 1:05-cv-01524-LJO-DLB Document 38 Filed 01/10/08 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

Defendants originally also move for dismissal of claims one and two on the grounds that plaintiff’s inamte 1

appeals did not provide sufficent notice to defendants of the claims against them. However, after reviewing

plaintiff’s oppositon, defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss as to claims one and two. See Defendants’ Reply

to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, p.2:21-22. 

3

six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-

950.2 (West 2007). Presentation of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are

conditions precedent to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234,

1245, 90 P.3d 116, 124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 543 (2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n,

67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public employee, a plaintiff must

allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act. State v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th at 1245, 90 P.3d

at 124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d at 543; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,

839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). A plaintiff must file a petition for relief within six months of the

Board’s rejection. Cal. Gov’t. Code § 946.6(b).

Defendants argue they are entitled to dismissal of claims three, four and five because plaintiff

failed to exhaust the inmate appeals process with regard to these claims. Defendants also move 1

dismissal of plaintiff’s sixth claim on the grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with the California

Tort Claims Act. In support of their motion, defendants submit evidence that plaintiff’s claims

regarding (1) his legal property (Claim 3); (2) his mail (Claim 4); or (3) the administration of pepper

spray (Claim 5), were not included in any grievance which received a decision at the Director’s level

of review. Declaration of N. Grannis, ¶¶ 4-8, Declaration of B. Hall, ¶ 13, Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss, Ex.C-F. Defendants also point out that plaintiff did not comply with California’s Tort

Claims Act because plaintiff field his complaint more than six months after the Victim

Compensation and Government Board rejected his claim. Complaint, Ex. G, p. 2. 

Although plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion with regard to claims one and two, which

defendants have now withdrawn, plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to submit a grievance

regarding claims three, four and five. Plaintiff also does not dispute that he failed to comply with

the Tort Claims Act. 

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01524-LJO-DLB Document 38 Filed 01/10/08 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

D. Conclusion

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

dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed April 16, 2007, be GRANTED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims three through six be GRANTED and

these claims be dismissed, without prejudice; 

b. This case proceed solely on claims one and two relating to defendants’

conduct on September 8, 2003; and

c. Defendants be required to respond to claims one and two of plaintiff’s

complaint within twenty days.

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 twenty (20)

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: January 9, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01524-LJO-DLB Document 38 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 4