Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01014/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01014-11/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’s excessive force claim against any defendant other than Landry and Casby, and plaintiff’s 1

retaliation, due process, and supervisory liability claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted; and defendants Woodford, Scribner, Poulos, and Hill were dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to

state any claim upon which relief may be granted against them. (Doc. 18.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01014-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

BE DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 25)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff James Reynolds (“plaintiff”) is a former 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 August 8, 2005, against defendants Landry and Casby (“defendants”) for

use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On October 13, 2006, pursuant to

1

the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants filed a motion to

dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies in compliance

///

Case 1:05-cv-01014-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 04/05/07 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 June 26, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 17.)

2

with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 17, 2006. (Doc.

2

28.) 

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-01014-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 04/05/07 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

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.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he attempted on several occasions to exhaust but was

unsuccessful. (Doc. 1, Comp., 8:21-22.) Plaintiff alleges that he sent an inmate appeal to the

appeals coordinator on July 28, 2004, but it was never processed or returned to him. (Id., 8:23-9:3.)

Thereafter, on September 12, 2004, plaintiff submitted another appeal to the appeals coordinator but

it was not processed or returned. (Id., 9:4-6.) Plaintiff alleges that he also submitted a copy of the

appeal to the ombudsman on September 12, 2004, but it was not processed or returned. (Id., 9:7-10.)

Plaintiff alleges he sent a third copy of the appeal to the Director’s Level of review in Sacramento,

but it was returned with a letter notifying him that he must submit the appeal to the appeals

coordinator. (Id., 9:11-24.) On February 7, 2005, plaintiff again sent the appeal to the Director’s

Level of review with an explanatory letter regarding his attempts to get the appeal processed, but

received no response. (Id., 9:25-10:2.)

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s allegations constitute an admission that he failed to exhaust,

and that there is no record of any appeals filed by plaintiff concerning the alleged incident of force

at issue in this action. In support of their motion, defendants submit evidence that records reflect

no submission of an appeal at CSP-Corcoran concerning the use of force. (Doc. 25, Jones Dec., ¶¶5,

6.) Defendants also submit evidence that plaintiff submitted appeal log number 04-3582 grieving

the issuance of a CDC-115 for battery on a peace officer on July 16, 2004, but that the appeal was

not accepted for review at the Director’s Level. (Id., Grannis Dec., ¶¶9, 10.)

Defendants correctly argue that plaintiff may not bypass the institutional levels and proceed

directly to the Director’s Level, and that appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of

the event at issue. However, this is not a situation where plaintiff simply attempted to bypass the

institutional levels or where plaintiff’s appeal was screened out as untimely. 

Case 1:05-cv-01014-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 04/05/07 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 Plaintiff’s verified complaint and verified opposition may be used as opposing affidavits to the extent they 3

are based on facts within plaintiff’s personal knowledge. Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-1400 (9th Cir.

1998). 

4

Plaintiff has submitted evidence that he sent an inmate appeal grieving the incident at issue

in this action to the appeals coordinator on July 28, 2004, and again on September 12, 2004, but

received no response either time. Plaintiff has also submitted evidence that for inmates in 3

administrative segregation, as he was at the time, institutional mail is the only way to submit an

appeal and once it is in officials’ hands, they must direct it to the appeals office. (Doc. 28, Opp.,

4:26-5:4.) 

In order to prevail on their motion, defendants must demonstrate plaintiff’s failure to exhaust,

Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921; Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936 (9th Cir. 2005). In a situation such as

this where plaintiff submitted evidence that he attempted to properly utilize the appeals process but

received no response to his appeal, defendants must do more than point out the lack of an appeal

logged at the institutional or Director’s level. Defendants are not entitled to dismissal unless they

address plaintiff’s contention and demonstrate what remedies were available in such a situation. It

is not the court’s burden to craft an opinion regarding what plaintiff was or was not obligated to do

when he did not receive a response to the appeal he allegedly properly submitted at the institutional

level.

The court is not finding that plaintiff exhausted. Rather, the court is merely finding that in

light of defendants’ failure to address plaintiff’s contention that he attempted to utilize the process

properlybut was unsuccessful, defendants have not met their burden and are not entitled, at this time,

to dismissal for failure to exhaust.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed October 13, 2006, be

DENIED, without prejudice; and

2. Defendants be required to respond to plaintiff’s complaint within thirty 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 thirty (30)

Case 1:05-cv-01014-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 04/05/07 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

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: April 4, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01014-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 04/05/07 Page 5 of 5