Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00908/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00908-9/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

FRANCIS W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0908-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND THIS

ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING

SUIT

(Doc. 26) 

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Francis Davis (“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 July 14, 2005, against defendants Clark, Williams, Stohl and Sherman

(“defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that defendants confiscated and destroyed his personal property in

retaliation for his filing a civil rights lawsuit. On December 27, 2005, pursuant to 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 prior to filing suit. In the

alternative, defendants move for dismissal for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an opposition

Case 1:05-cv-00908-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/22/06 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

 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on October 7, 2005. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Based on the Court’s recommendation that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted, by order issued 2

concurrently with this recommendation, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint.

2

on January 12, 2006. On January 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a request to amend his complaint to add 1

an additional defendant. Defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition on January 25, 2006. 2

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). 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 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

Case 1:05-cv-00908-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/22/06 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

3

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). 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

Plaintiff filed this suit on July 14, 2005. Plaintiff alleges that on February 21, 2005,

defendants Clark and Williams searched his cell and took a box containing statutes. Plaintiff alleges

that the statutes were taken from plaintiff in retaliation for filing a lawsuit against the officers. 

In their motion to dismiss, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims prior

to filing suit and that they are entitled to dismissal of this action as a result. According to the

complaint, plaintiff filed an appeal regarding the confiscation of his property and was interviewed

by defendant Stohl on May 2, 2005. Compl. at p. 12-14. Based on the First Level Response attached

to plaintiff’s compliant as Exhibit #1, plaintiff refused to participate in the interview process.

Compl. at p. 12. Due to plaintiff’s “loud, argumentative and disruptive” behavior, the interview

attempt was terminated and based on his “lack of cooperation” the appeal was canceled at the First

Level of Review. Id. Plaintiff disputes the allegation that he was uncooperative during the

interview. Id.

In his opposition, plaintiff concedes that he did not pursue the appeal beyond the first level

but argues that since the appeal was cancelled at the first level, it was exhausted. 

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 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,

Case 1:05-cv-00908-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/22/06 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

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). However, here, there is no dispute that plaintiff’s appeal was cancelled

at the first level and plaintiff did not thereafter pursue the appeal. While plaintiff may dispute the

reason for the cancellation, the fact remains that he did not pursue the appeal beyond the first level.

 D. Conclusion

Because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action, this

action must be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed December 27, 2005, be GRANTED; and

2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based

on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

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)

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: June 21, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00908-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/22/06 Page 4 of 4