Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05556-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT S. MILTON,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5556 AWI WMW P

vs.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS

C/O LAWTON, et al.,

Defendants. (Document #21)

_____________________________/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has opposed the motion.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at

Corcoran State Prison, brings this civil rights action against defendant correctional officials

employed by the Department of Corrections at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names as

defendants Correctional Sergeant E. Lawton and Correctional Sergeant R. Beer. Plaintiff claims

that defendants subjected him to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s

prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 

The allegations of the complaint, taken as true, indicate that on August 30, 2002,

Case 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW Document 43 Filed 09/28/05 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

plaintiff was housed in the Security Housing Unit (SHU), which requires escort to and from the

showers. On that date, plaintiff refused to leave the shower until he was able to speak to

somebody about the conduct of C/O DoConto. Plaintiff was concerned about “misuse of

authority in disrespecting inmate’s property.” 

Both Sgt. Lawton and Sgt. Beer responded. Plaintiff specifically alleges that

“both sgts responded by spraying inmate directly in the face with the high powered canisters of

O.C. pepper spray. Sgt. E. Lawton and Sgt. R. Beer sprayed inmate who was trapped in a 3 foot

by 6 foot shower in his face and body and crotch until canisters were empty.” Comp. at 4:4-8. 

Plaintiff further alleges that after he was placed in handcuffs. “Sgt. Beer grabbed

inmate by his hair and stated, ‘Do you still want to see the Lt., punk?’ I/M Milton responded

‘yeah.’ Then Sgt. R. Beer while holding inmate by his hair, slammed I/M Milton’s head into the

wall splitting his forehead open.” Id. at 4:16-19. 

Liberally construed, the complaint states a claim for relief against defendants Beer

and Lawton for excessive force. The court directed service of process upon defendants. 

Defendants responded by this motion to dismiss.

Exhaustion

Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b) on the ground that plaintiff has failed to completely exhaust his available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) to read as follows:

(a) APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. No action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1979 of the Revised

Statutes of the United States (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. 

In Booth v. Churner,532 U.S. 731 (2001), the Supreme Court, in addressing the

question of whether a prisoner need exhaust available remedies when monetary damages are

unavailable, held that “Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, regardless of the relief

Case 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW Document 43 Filed 09/28/05 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

offered through administrative procedures.” Id. at 1821. In order to bring his claim in federal

court, plaintiff must completely exhaust his available administrative remedies. In California,

there are four levels of review - informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third

formal level. The third formal level constitutes the Director’s decision on appeal. Cal. Code

Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.5(e)(2). 

The events that give rise to this lawsuit occurred on August 30, 2002. As noted,

this case proceeds on a claim of excessive force by defendants Lawton and Beer. In support of

their motion, defendants submit Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A includes certified copies of a report

using the inmate tracking system to track inmate grievances. This report lists inmate grievances

filed by plaintiff by plaintiff between July 24, 2002 and March 24, 2004. On September 6, 2002,

plaintiff filed a grievance regarding a program issue. Plaintiff filed eight grievances in 2003

regarding staff complaints, property, living conditions and custody classification/other. 

Exhibit B includes copies of various grievances filed by plaintiff between June 20,

2002 and March 22, 2004. Defendants cite these grievances in response to plaintiff’s

contention that he tried, several times, unsuccessfully to submit an inmate grievance concerning

the incident at issue. Plaintiff filed the following grievances:

Grievance 02-2456 filed on June 20, 2002 regarding correspondence with a

female inmate at Valley State Prison for Women.

Grievance 02-2972 filed on July 19, 2002 regarding reading material in

segregated housig.

Grievance 03-1814 filed on May 7, 2003 regarding receipt of copies of

documents from a correctional officer.

Grievance 03-2831 filed on July 21, 2003 regarding inmate property.

Grievance 03-2586 filed on July 21, 2003 regarding compensation for damaged

books.

Case 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW Document 43 Filed 09/28/05 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 03-3141 filed on August 10, 2003 regarding receiving a copy of the

weekly menu.

Grievance 03-3408 filed on September 7, 2003 regarding increasing the allotted

shower time from 5 minutes to 10 minutes.

Grievance 03-3881 filed on September 28, 2003 regarding receipt of reading

materials.

Grievance 03-3775 filed on September 16, 2003 regarding a return to double cell

status.

Grievance 04-924 filed on March 21, 2004 regarding allegations of excessive

force on March 17, 2004 by correctional officers not named as defendants in this action.

Grievance 04-1214 filed on March 22, 2004 regarding a move off of A yard in

order to get away from Correctional Officer Munoz.

Plaintiff refers the court to Exhibit B to the complaint, in which he lists 13

separate attempts to file inmate grievances. Plaintiff lists the dates of each attempt, and indicates

that a correctional officer refused to sign the receipt. Plaintiff does not submit any evidence to

support his contention, nor does plaintiff attach any copies of the grievances at issue. In their

reply to the opposition, defendants submit evidence that plaintiff did not submit grievances on

the dates in question.

Attached to plaintiff’s opposition is an inmate grievance, dated January 4, 2004,

regarding the conduct at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff names defendants Lawton and Beer and

refers to the pepper-spray incident on August 30, 2002. The date stamp indicates that the

grievance was received on March 12, 2004. The grievance was rejected at untimely, as indicated

by a stamp, stating that the grievance is “Rejected per CCR 3084.3(c). That section provides for

rejection of an appeal for various reasons, including timeliness. Though plaintiff was able to

filed numerous grievances in 2002 and 2003, he did not file a grievance of the conduct at issue in

Case 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW Document 43 Filed 09/28/05 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

this lawsuit until 2004. There is no evidence that he pursuant the rejection of the grievance any

further.

In Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit addressed the

issue of an untimely appeal filed by a prisoner in a California State Prison. In that case, the

inmate filed an appeal that was rejected as untimely. The inmate was advised by the Appeals

Coordinator that this decision could not be appealed unless plaintiff argued that his appeal was in

fact timely. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, which held that only a decision at the

third and final level of review exhausted the grievance process. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that,

because there was no process left, plaintiff had indeed exhausted the administrative remedies that

were available to him. Because plaintiff could no longer appeal the decision (he did not argue

that his appeal was in fact timely), there was no further process available to him. The court

rejected the defendants’ argument that the failure to comply with the applicable administrative

filing requirements was equivalent to a failure to exhaust. 

Here, plaintiff filed a grievance that is clearly untimely. A review of the

grievance indicates that plaintiff does not argue that his appeal is timely. Pursuant to the Ninth

Circuit’s holding in Ngo, such a failure to comply with the administrative requirements is not, of

itself, a failure to exhaust. Defendants make no argument, or submit any evidence that, plaintiff

has any administrative remedy available. As noted in Ngo, defendants have the burden of rasing

and proving a prisoner’s failure to exhaust under the PLRA. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent evidence that an administrative remedy remains, plaintiff has

exhausted his administrative remedies.

State Law Claims

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s state law claims of assault and battery should be

dismissed for failure to comply with the Tort Claims Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810, et. seq.),

which requires that a claim for money damages against employees of the California Department

Case 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW Document 43 Filed 09/28/05 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

of Corrections must be filed with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. 

(Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 945.6(c) and 950.6. Defendants specifically argue that, pursuant to section

945.4, a timely presentation of a claim to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims

Board and its rejection are required before plaintiff can maintain a tort claim for money damages. 

Plaintiff has made no such showing, and has failed to respond to defendants’ argument. The

state law claim must therefore be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative

remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997 e(a) is DENIED.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the state law claims of assault and battery is

GRANTED. 

3. Plaintiff’s state law claims of assault and battery are DISMISSED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW Document 43 Filed 09/28/05 Page 6 of 6