Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05893/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05893-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O MACIAS,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5893 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc.

28.) 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Leonard Henderson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on June

30, 2003, and on August 25, 2003, found that the Complaint appeared to state cognizable

retaliation claim against Defendant Macias only but stated no other claims against any other

Defendants. The Court then granted Plaintiff time to filed an Amended Complaint or notify the

court of his willingness to proceed on the retaliation claim only against Defendant Macias. 

Case 1:03-cv-05893-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 7
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

On September 16, 2003, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. This time, however,

Plaintiff alleged not only that Defendant Macias threatened to confiscate property in retaliation

for grievances filed but actually did confiscate Plaintiff’s property. On September 21, 2004, the

Court screened the Amended Complaint and found that the Amended Complaint only stated a

claim for relief against Defendant Macias for retaliation. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson v.

Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court then granted Plaintiff the opportunity to

amend the Complaint for a second time and cure the outlined defects or notify the court of his

willingness to proceed against Defendant Macias for retaliation only. 

On October 25, 2004, Plaintiff notified the court of his willingness to proceed only on the

retaliation claim against Defendant Macias. Thus, on November 17, 2004, the Court issued

Findings and Recommendations dismissing those claims against those Defendants not

cognizable. The Court also ordered service of the Amended Complaint on Defendant Macias. 

On March 11, 2005, Defendant Macias filed an unenumerated Motion to Dismiss for

Plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed a pleading denying

that his retaliation claim is unexhausted on April 4, 2005. 

II. MOTION TO DISMISS - EXHAUSTION

A. Standard of Review

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). 

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). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing

Case 1:03-cv-05893-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 7
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

to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. 

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy

which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at

3084.1(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.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5 (2004). 

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). Defendants further bear the

burden of proving that further administrative remedies are available to Plaintiff. Brown v.

Valoff, – F.3d – , 422 F.3d 926, 2005 WL 2129069, *7 (9th Cir.2005). The Ninth Circuit has

further recognized that a prisoner has exhausted his remedies when he demonstrates that his

grievance has been rejected as untimely and he could “go no further in the prison’s

administrative system; no remedies remained available to him.” Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d

620, 625 (9th Cir.2005) 

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 curiam)). 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. 

//

//

Case 1:03-cv-05893-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 3 of 7
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

B. Analysis

In this case, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies

because he failed to allege in his grievance that Defendant Macias actually confiscated his

property in retaliation for his filing administrative grievances against other Defendants. 

Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff pursued an administrative grievance to all necessary

levels in grievance number 02-00597. A review of this grievance shows that Plaintiff only

alleged that Defendant Macias threatened to retaliate against him by taking his property. As

noted by Defendants, Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant Macias actually did confiscate his

property as he alleges in the Amended Complaint. However, Plaintiff also alleges in the

Amended Complaint that he made several efforts to file an administrative grievance concerning

Defendant Macia’s confiscation of his property but that his grievances went unanswered. 

(Amended Complaint at 6-7.) Plaintiff attaches to the Amended Complaint a copy of a Request

for Interview directed to Defendant Macias dated July 1, 2002. (Exh. 4, Amended Complaint); an

Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form dated July 10, 2002. (Exh. 5, Amended Complaint); a second

Inmate Request for Interview directed to the Appeals Coordinator dated July 26, 2002 and

indicating that his appeals were not responded to. (Exh. 5, Amended Complaint); an second 

Inmate/Parolee Appeal form dated August 12, 2002, and indicating that his appeals are not being

responded to. (Exh. 6, Amended Complaint); a letter from the Office of the Inspector General

dated April 9, 2002, indicating that Plaintiff should pursue his administrative remedies (Exh. 6,

Amended Complaint); and finally, a copy of a letter to the Director of Corrections, Appeals

Department and Staff dated September 2, 2002, concerning the failure to respond to Plaintiff’s

appeals. (Exh. 7, Amended Complaint.) Although Defendant acknowledges Plaintiff’s efforts to

file an appeal and that Plaintiff “failed to get his appeal logged before filing this action,”

Defendant maintains Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies because he never got a

“Director’s Level Decision regarding the actual retaliation and personal property claims against

Macias.” (Motion to Dismiss at 6.) 

The receipt of a Director’s Level decision is not always necessary for exhaustion to occur. 

In some circumstances, the granting of an inmate appeal at a lower level may satisfy the

Case 1:03-cv-05893-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 4 of 7
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

exhaustion requirement. See Ross v. County of San Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1187 (10th Cir.

2004); Clement v. California Dept. of Corr., 220 F.Supp.2d 1098, 1106 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9,

2002); Brady v. Attygala, 196 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1019 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2002); Gomez v.

Winslow, 177 F.Supp.2d 977, 985 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2001). In addition, although there are no

Ninth Circuit Court cases on point, other Circuits have addressed the issue of the effect of prison

officials’ failure to respond to grievances in a timely manner and held that exhaustion occurs

when prison officials fail to respond to a grievance within the policy time limits. Boyd v.

Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 2004) (administrative remedies are

exhausted when prison officials fail to timely respond to properly filed grievance); Jernigan v.

Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (the failure to respond to a grievance within the

policy time limits renders remedy unavailable); Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th

Cir. 2002) (when prison officials fail to respond, the remedy becomes unavailable, and

exhaustion occurs); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. 2001) (district court did not

err when it declined to dismiss claim for failure to exhaust where prison failed to respond to

grievance); Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999) (when a valid grievance has been

filed and the state’s time for responding has expired, the remedies are deemed exhausted);

Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998) (when time limit for prison’s response

has expired, the remedies are exhausted); see also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir.

2003) (recognizing that a remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an

available remedy); Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 2002) (formal grievance

procedure not available where prison officials told prisoner to wait for termination of

investigation before filing formal grievance and then never informed prisoner of termination of

investigation); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (a remedy prison officials

prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy). In joining the Eighth and Fifth

Circuits with respect to this issue, the Seventh Circuit Court stated that it “refuse[d] to interpret

the PLRA ‘so narrowly as to . . . permit [prison officials] to exploit the exhaustion requirement

through indefinite delay in responding to the grievances.’” Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829,

833 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Goodman v. Carter, No. 2000 C 948, 2001 WL 755137, at *3

Case 1:03-cv-05893-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

(N.D.Ill. July 2, 2001)). Defendant does not address the impact of the prisons failure to respond

to Plaintiff’s inmate requests nor does he indicate what administrative remedies remain available

to Plaintiff or what Plaintiff could have done under the circumstances to exhaust his

administrative remedies. The Court recognizes that the instant Motion to Dismiss was filed early

in 2005 and thus, Defendant did not have the benefit of recent Ninth Circuit law. 

In Ngo v.Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2005), the Court recognized that a

prisoner satisfied the exhaustion requirement by showing his grievance had been rejected as

untimely because he "could go no further in the prison's administrative system; no remedies

remained available to him.” Ngo v.Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2005). 

In Brown v. Valoff, – F.3d – , 422 F.3d 926, 2005 WL 2129069, *7 (9th Cir.2005), the

Court held that in proving that a Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

Defendant's must show that further administrative remedies remain "available" to the Plaintiff. 

Brown v. Valoff, – F.3d – , 422 F.3d 926, 2005 WL 2129069, *7 (9th Cir.2005). “[T]here can

be no ’absence of exhaustion’ unless some relief remains available . . .” Id. citing Brown v.

Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 112 (3rd Cir. 2002). 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

As Defendants have failed to meet their burden in showing what remedies remain

available to Plaintiff, Defendant has failed to meet his burden in proving that Plaintiff has not

exhausted his administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion

to Dismiss be DENIED without prejudice to a renewal of a Motion curing the defects outlined

above within thirty (30) days of the District Court’s disposition of this Motion. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

Case 1:03-cv-05893-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05893-OWW -LJO Document 32 Filed 10/21/05 Page 7 of 7