Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01009-10/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

GEORGE D. MOORE,

Plaintiff, 1:05 CV 1009 LJO WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

D. SNELL, et al.,

Defendants.

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

Corcoran State Prison, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at Avenal State

Prison. This action proceeds against Defendants D. Snell and R. Wicks on Plaintiff’s claims of

excessive force and denial of medical care. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to

dismiss. Plaintiff has opposed the motion.

This lawsuit arises from a disturbance that occurred on October 22, 2004. Plaintiff

alleges that the facility was put on lock down while interviews were being conducted. On

October 28, 2004, Defendant Correctional Officer Snell attempted to interview Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff refused to be interviewed. Plaintiff alleges that the following occurred:

At that time C/O D. Snell ordered me to put my hands behind my

back. While putting my hands behind my back C/O D. Snell

Case 1:05-cv-01009-LJO -WMW Document 31 Filed 08/28/08 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

2

became aggressive with how he was applying the restraints. The

restraints were improperly applied to the point that the circulation

in my right wrist was being cut off. I asked C/O D. Snell would he

please readjust the restraints. C/O D. Snell continued to apply the

restraints improperly while stating that he could care less. I then

began to prosume to lay down in a non-agressive position face

down on the ground. While in this position C/O D. Snell jumped

on to my back and applied unwarranted use of force that resulted in

my left elbow right wrist being cut severely and bleeding.

Plaintiff was then escorted to the Program Office. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

Sergeant Wick denied Plaintiff’s request for medical care, and directed that Plaintiff be moved

out of his housing unit and into the gym in order to hide Plaintiff’s injuries.

Defendants seek to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his

available administrative remedies, pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1997e(a). The Civil Rights Act

under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States. . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution. . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 7 of The Prison Litigation Reform Act was amended 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. 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 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 offered through administrative procedures.” Id. at 1821. In order to bring

his claim in federal court, plaintiff must completely exhaust his available administrative

remedies.

Case 1:05-cv-01009-LJO -WMW Document 31 Filed 08/28/08 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

3

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). 

In support of their motion, defendants submit the declaration of N. Grannis, Chief of the

Inmate Appeals Branch of the CDCR in Sacramento. N. Grannis declares the following:

The Inmate Appeals Branch (IAB) provides the third and final

level of administrative review on appeals filed by inmates and

parolees of the State of California. 

All inmate appeals submitted for Director’s level review are logged

into a computer database. This computer database tracks all

properly filed inmate appeals received, which are then accepted by

the IAB and adjudicated at the Director’s level.

When an inmate submits a request for a Director’s Level decision

that does not comply with the regulations governing the appeals

process, IAB will “screen out” (i.e. reject) the request and return it

to the inmate with a letter stating the deficiency. IAB maintains

records of appeals that were screened out, was well as the reason

for the rejection. The reasons that IAB will reject an appeal have

been codified.

I am familiar with the record keeping system at the IAB and am

able to verify the status of a California inmate’s third-level

administrative appeal.

At the request of the Office of the Attorney General, I performed a

thorough search of my records and files to determine whether

Inmate Moore (E-27661) filed an appeal regarding his claim that

Defendant Snell used excessive force and Defendant Wick failed to

provide proper medical care on October 28, 2004. A search of

IAB’s records reveals that on May 19, 2005, inmate Moore

submitted an appeal for Director’s level review (grievance number

ASP-04-02600), which was screened out that same day for missing

documentation. A true and correct copy of the screen out report

pertaining to Moore is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 

Grannis Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.

Case 1:05-cv-01009-LJO -WMW Document 31 Filed 08/28/08 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

4

In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. 

Referring to the missing documentation, Plaintiff states that “it is not Plaintiff’s fault, if the

administration lost, misplace, or destroyed said documentation 1858 once it reached Chief

Inmate Appeals Branch.” Plaintiff also refers to ASP-M-05-00333. Page 4 of Plaintiff’s

Exhibit C is a copy of the first level response to grievance number ASP-M-05-00333. Plaintiff

submits no evidence that grievance number ASP-M-05-00333 was submitted to Director’s level

of review. Page 3 of Plaintiff’s Exhibit C is a copy of the screen out report attached as

Defendants’ Exhibit A. This Exhibit indicates that no appeal was received at the Director’s

level for grievance number ASP-M-05-00333. 

Regarding grievance number ASP-04-02600, Plaintiff does not offer any evidence that he

submitted the grievance with the required documentation. Plaintiff offers no evidence to support

his conclusory allegation that “the administration lost, misplace, or destroyed said

documentation.” The evidence submitted by Defendants indicates that the appeal was screened

out for missing documentation. Plaintiff offers no evidence to the contrary. 

“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion

requirement may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . .

appeal.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81, 85 (2006). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance

with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. at 89. The Woodford

court was clear that “administrative law requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies,

which means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly, so that the agency

addresses the issues on the merits.” Id. at 88. Plaintiff has offered no evidence that he complied

with all of the procedural requirements for filing his administrative grievance at the final,

Director’s level of review. Defendants’ motion should therefore be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the motion to dismiss be granted,

and this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available administrative

Case 1:05-cv-01009-LJO -WMW Document 31 Filed 08/28/08 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

5

remedies prior to filing suit.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s

findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01009-LJO -WMW Document 31 Filed 08/28/08 Page 5 of 5