Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00650/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00650-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

The Court issued a Notice pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14

(9th Cir. 2003), advising Plaintiff of his obligation to respond. (Doc. 16.)

SVK

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Samuel Martin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Corrections Corporation of America, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0650-PHX-DGC (JFM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Samuel Martin, a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(CDCR) inmate who was confined in the Red Rock Correctional Center (RRCC) of the

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1, 10.) Defendant Lapre moves to dismiss the only remaining

claim, asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).1

 (Doc. 15.) The Court will grant the motion, dismiss

the remaining claim without prejudice, and terminate the action.

I. Background

 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on November 3, 2010, he was

on his way out of his unit to go to Education, which required him to submit to a pat-down

search before leaving the building. Defendant was conducting the searches and reached

Case 2:11-cv-00650-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/06/12 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 screening the Court dismissed Rogers, CCA, and additional claims. (Doc. 11.)

3

In support of their motion, Defendant submits the affidavit of G. Christie, Temporary

Grievance Coordinator at RRCC (Doc. 15, Ex. 1, Christie Aff.), with attachments: Grievance

Procedures for CDCR Inmates (id., Ex. 1, Attach. A) and grievance documents (id., Exs. 1-B

– 1-H). Plaintiff submits his Response (Doc. 19), with exhibits. 

- 2 -

between Plaintiff’s legs and grabbed and squeezed his penis. At Plaintiff’s request, Warden

Rogers was summoned, and Plaintiff told him about Defendant’s actions. Rogers said that

Lapree was conducting a thorough search and told Plaintiff to continue to Education. Rogers

talked to Head Warden Stolc and Stolc told Rogers to take Plaintiff out of Education and

have him go to medical for examination. Plaintiff was then placed in administrative

segregation. Plaintiff asserts that as a result of Defendant’s actions, he suffers from

“psychosexual Bewilderment, mood swings,” and insomnia. Plaintiff contends that his right

to privacy was violated pursuant to a policy of pat-down searches that involved the touching,

groping, or manipulation of genitalia. (Id.) The Court directed Defendant to answer.

(Doc. 11.)2

 Defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies as to any claim. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff opposes the motion.3

 

II. Motion to Dismiss

A. Legal Standard—Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Under the PLRA, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before

bringing a federal action concerning prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin

v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). Exhaustion is required for all suits about

prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002), regardless of the type of relief offered

through the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). And a

prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable

rules. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007). Thus,

the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119. Because exhaustion is a matter of abatement in an unenumerated Rule 12(b)

Case 2:11-cv-00650-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/06/12 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 -

motion, a court may look beyond the pleadings to decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-

20. Further, a court has broad discretion as to the method to be used in resolving the factual

dispute. Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th

Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted).

B. Parties’ Contentions 

1. Defendants

 Defendants assert that the administrative remedies procedure for CDCR inmates in

CCA facilities is set forth in LPCC Policy 14-101, Grievance Procedures for CDCR Inmates.

 (Doc. 15, Ex. 1, Christie Aff. ¶ 4.) Policy 14-101, effective September 8, 2008, was in

effect at the time of Plaintiff’s initial intake at RRCC on February 2, 2010, and at all relevant

times; it is modeled after and incorporates the timelines and requirements set forth in Title

15 of the California Code of Regulations. (Id. ¶ 5, citing Cal. Code of Regulations 15 §

3084.)

The grievance process has four levels. (Id. ¶ 11.) Except for emergency grievances

and appeals of CDCR decisions, inmates must first submit questions, disputes, or complaints

on an Informal Resolution Form (Form 14-101A) within 15 work days of the incident. (Id.

¶ 11(a).) Unless a time extension is granted due to unusual circumstances, a CDCR inmate

will receive a response to an informal resolution within 10 working days of submitting Form

14-101A. (Id.) If not satisfied, the inmate can file a Level One formal grievance on Form

14-101B within 15 working days of receipt of the response to his informal resolution,

attaching a copy of the informal resolution and response. (Id. ¶ 11(b).) The grievance officer

will assign a number and document the grievance. (Id.) The facility Warden or

Administrative Duty Officer then reviews each response before it is provided to the inmate.

(Id.) Unless unusual circumstances necessitate a time extension, a CDCR inmate will receive

a response to a Level One formal grievance within 30 working days of submission of a

proper and complete Form 14-101B. (Id.)

 If an inmate is unsatisfied with the response to the formal grievance, he may, within

15 working days of receipt of the response, submit a Level Two appeal to the COCF Appeals

Case 2:11-cv-00650-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/06/12 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 -

Coordinator, pursuant to 15 Cal. Code of Regulations § 3084. (Id. ¶ 11(c).) If the inmate is

still unsatisfied with the COCF decision, he may submit a Level Three formal grievance to

the COCF Director within 15 working days of receipt of the Level Two response. (Id.

¶ 11(d).) 

Defendant asserts that if an inmate fails to properly submit a Level One formal

grievance, it may be rejected. A Grievance may be screened and rejected by the Grievance

Coordinator for a variety of reasons, including that it fails to include evidence of attempted

informal resolution or it is incomplete or untimely. If a grievance is screened, the inmate is

notified of any deficiencies and is permitted to resubmit the formal grievance, provided the

time for submission of a Level One formal grievance has not expired. However, aside from

notification of the deficiencies, an improperly submitted formal grievance requires no

investigation or formal response to be provided. (Id. ¶ 14.) If an inmate fails to follow this

procedure or omits any part of it, he has not exhausted the administrative remedies available

at RRCC.

Christie attests to reviewing the facility Grievance Logs for 2010 and 2011 for

Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 17.) The 14-101(B) form dated January 4, 2011, submitted as an exhibit to

the Amended Complaint, was received by the grievance office; however, it was screened

directly back to Plaintiff as being incomplete and improperly submitted because Plaintiff

bypassed the first level of grievance which is the 14-101(A) form. (Id. ¶ 18.) “Need 14-

101(A) first” is noted on his improperly filed 14-101(B) Form. (Id., Attach. C.) According

to Christie, the review of the grievance logs indicate that Plaintiff never re-submitted any

grievance regarding this issue on the proper 14-l0l(A) form. (Id. ¶ 19.) And the grievance

is on its face untimely, as it was submitted well after the 15 day limit had expired. (Id. ¶ 20.)

Christie also attests that although Plaintiff claims RRCC staff refused to provide him

with proper paper work to submit or appeal a request for administrative relief, Policy 14-101

provides that the denial of access to the grievance procedures is a grievable matter. (Id.

¶¶ 22-23, see Attach. A sectíon I4-101.4(F)(3).) Christie’s review of the grievance record

indicates that Plaintiff never grieved the issue of being denied access. (Id. ¶ 24.)

Case 2:11-cv-00650-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/06/12 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 -

2. Plaintiff

Plaintiff asserts that he was placed in Administrative Segregation on the ground that

he “presents an immediate threat to the safety of self or others and endangers institution

security.” (Doc. 19 at 1.) He was not placed there for jeopardizing the integrity of an

investigation. (Id.) He asserts that he was not provided an Investigative Employee as

required by Title 15 § 3318, who is designated to gather information for the senior hearing

officer or hearing committee as described in § 3315(d)(1)(A). (Doc. 19 at 1.) He asserts that

he was not properly advised of all his rights, including the right to file or exhaust

administrative remedies, in violation of Equal Protection.. (Id. at 2.)

3. Reply

Defendant reasserts that the January 4, 2011 grievance does not constitute proper

exhaustion because Plaintiff bypassed the informal resolution level. (Doc. 20 at 3.) They

also argue that the grievance is a request for a “128-G” and incident statements and not, in

fact, a grievance about alleged sexual misconduct. (Id.) Defendant contends that inmates

can use administrative remedies while in administrative segregation and Plaintiff received

a copy of RRCC grievance policies and procedures. (Id., ref. Doc. 15, Ex. 1, Attach. B.)

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff is improperly attempting to add new claims

through his allegations that he was not provided an investigative employee. (Id. at 5.) An

investigative employee is assigned to investigate a disciplinary action when there is a

“serious rule violation.” Cal. Code Regs. 15 § 3315(d)(1)(A). Plaintiff was placed in

administrative segregation to protect the integrity of the investigation; he was not charged

with a “serious rule violation.” (Id. at 6.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state an

equal protection claim because he does not allege that he was treated differently than others

similarly situated. (Id. at 6-7.) 

C. Analysis

The Court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant has met his burden

to establish the availability of an administrative-remedy procedure and that Plaintiff failed

to use that procedure to exhaust his remedies. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to establish a

Case 2:11-cv-00650-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/06/12 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 -

sufficient excuse for not exhausting his remedies

The parties submit Plaintiff’s Formal Grievance, dated January 4, 2011, stating that

Plaintiff was placed in Administrative Segregation on November 3, 2010, after he reported

staff sexual misconduct. (Doc. 15, Ex. 1, Attach. C; Doc. 19 at 4.) It also states that Plaintiff

was “kicked out” on November 10 and asked for 128-G and incident report so that he could

start his complaint against Defendant. (Id.) The response noted on the form is “Need 14-

101(A) first.” Plaintiff does not claim to have submitted any additional grievance documents

to prison officials on this matter. As Defendant notes, the formal grievance without the

initial step of an informal grievance does not constitute proper exhaustion. Moreover, the

January 4 grievance requests investigative documents so that Plaintiff could begin his

complaint against Defendant; because of the remedy sought in the grievance, it does not

suffice to put prison officials on notice of the complaint against Defendant, see Griffin, 557

F.3d at 1120 (“a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which

redress is sought”), and it is plainly out of time frames regarding the November 3, 2010

incident.

The Court rejects Plaintiff’s remaining arguments that he was excused from

exhausting his administrative remedies. Although Plaintiff claims that he was not properly

advised of his right to file a grievance, Defendant provides a signed acknowledgment that

Plaintiff received the CCA/RRCC orientation Handbook. (Doc. 15, Ex. 1, Attach. B.) The

Orientation Handbook contains a summary of the grievance policies and procedures. (Id.,

Ex. 1, Christie Aff. ¶ 6.) And the returned formal grievance specifically advised Plaintiff to

file an informal grievance first. Plaintiff also claims that he was not provided an

investigative employee, but Plaintiff was not charged with a disciplinary offense. See Cal.

Code Regs. 15 § 3315(a),(d). In addition, Plaintiff acknowledges in his First Amended

Complaint that he did not exhaust remedies and asserts that “the staff refuse to provide me

with proper paperwork to submit or appeal a request for Administrative Relief.” (Doc. 10

at 3.) But Plaintiff does not allege any specific information regarding his attempts to obtain

the necessary paperwork. His general assertion that he did not receive paperwork is

Case 2:11-cv-00650-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/06/12 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 -

insufficient to establish the unavailability of the grievance process. 

In sum, Plaintiff fails to establish that he was excused from exhausting his

administrative remedies. The Court will dismiss his remaining claim without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 15).

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted, and the remaining claims

are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

(3) The action is terminated, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(4) For the reasons set forth herein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal

from the judgment in this action would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00650-DGC Document 21 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 7