Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00119-0/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

 Defendants have informed the court that defendant Krackaleck’s name is misspelled. 

The correct spelling for this defendant is “Kacalek.” The court will direct the Clerk of the Court

to correct the court’s docket. The third defendant in this action, Dr. Duane P. Mabeus, filed an

answer on October 5, 2004, and has not joined in the pending motion to dismiss.

2

 On March 14, 2005, defendants filed an objection to plaintiff’s reply. Defendants argue

that Local Rule 78-230(m) does not recognize such a pleading and that plaintiff’s reply should be

stricken. Although defendants’ arguments are well taken, in the interest of justice and in light of

plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will consider plaintiff’s reply.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0119 DFL DAD P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) on behalf of defendants Green and Kacalek.1

Plaintiff has filed an opposition, defendants filed a reply, and plaintiff filed a reply to defendants’

reply.2

Case 2:03-cv-00119-JKS-DAD Document 48 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 8
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

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dr. Mabeus was deliberately indifferent to

plaintiff’s medical condition concerning his ankles. In this regard, plaintiff contends that his

ankles are swollen, he is in extreme pain and he can only walk short distances due to his ankle

pain. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mabeus has failed to provide him with any medical

treatment for this condition and has not referred plaintiff to an orthopedic doctor for appropriate

treatment.

Plaintiff claims that defendants Green and Kacalek, deputies at the jail, were also

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical care. In this vein, he alleges that on January 3,

2003, defendants Green and Kacalek ignored plaintiff’s request to see the nurse and told plaintiff

that if he pushed the cell’s call-button again to request the nurse, they would issue a disciplinary

infraction. 

MOTION TO DISMISS

I. The Parties’ Arguments

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to timely exhaust the administrative

remedies available to him at the Sacramento County Main Jail with respect to his claim of

deliberate indifference to his medical condition by defendants Green and Kacalek. 

Defendants refer to Sacramento County Sheriff Department Main Jail Operation

Order 9/20 setting forth the three-level inmate grievance system at the jail. (MTD at 6; Ex. A.) 

First, the inmate is required to attempt an informal resolution of the problem. (MTD, Ex. A, at

1.) Under that procedure the inmate is to direct his complaint to the Housing Unit Officer, but if

the officer does not resolve the problem, the inmate may file a formal written grievance. (Id.) 

Second, within five calendar days of the incident, the formal grievance must be submitted to the

Housing Unit Deputy. (Id.) If the deputy is unable to resolve the problem, the grievance is

forwarded to a Sergeant. (Id. at 2.) If the Sergeant is unable to resolve the problem within ten

days, the entire grievance package is forwarded to the Executive Lieutenant. (Id.) The Executive

Case 2:03-cv-00119-JKS-DAD Document 48 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 8
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

 The procedural default argument advanced by the defendants has now been explicitly

rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 629 (9th

Cir. 2005).

3

Lieutenant has five days to respond. (Id.) Third, if the inmate is dissatisfied with a reply to a

written grievance, within five days, the inmate may complete the “Inmate Grievance” form and

send it to the Jail Commander. (Id.) The Jail Commander then has five days to reply to such an

appeal. (Id.)

In support of their motion to dismiss defendants have submitted a declaration

from Sergeant Raymond Raute who works in the Executive Office where the inmate grievance

database is maintained. (Id., Ex. B.) Sergeant Raute states that he searched the inmate grievance

 database but that the “search did not reveal a Jail Commander reply, a written appeal of a formal

grievance response, or a written grievance filing by inmate Aaron Jones for the alleged January 3,

2003 incident wherein Deputies Green and Kacalek were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs by refusing to permit him to see medical staff for his ankle pain.” (Id. at 2-3.)

Defendants argue that since plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies

prior to bringing this lawsuit, the claims against defendants Green and Kacalek should be

dismissed without prejudice. (MTD at 4-5.) Defendants also contend that the Prison Litigation

Reform Act precludes any argument by plaintiff that there was substantial compliance with the

jail’s administrative grievance procedure. (Id. at 5-6.) Lastly, defendants argue that because

exhaustion is now procedurally defaulted, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with

prejudice.3 (Id. at 7.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss, contending that he filed a written

grievance within the five-day time limit and has submitted a copy of the grievance for the court’s

review. (Opp’n, at 2.) The grievance describes the January 3, 2003 incident as involving

defendants Green and Kacalek. (Id.) The document indicates that Officer Luke, badge number

1273, received the grievance form on January 4, 2003. (Id.)

Case 2:03-cv-00119-JKS-DAD Document 48 Filed 08/04/05 Page 3 of 8
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

 Plaintiff argues, “since no responce [sic] was ever given in order to forward [sic] to

proceed any higher, the plaintiff has exhausted the highest level as a matter of law.” (Pl.’s Reply

at 2.)

4

In their reply, defendants argue that plaintiff’s opposition fails to demonstrate

exhaustion of administrative remedies since plaintiff did not complete the third level of review

by submitting an appeal to the Jail Commander. (Def.’s’ Reply at 1-2.)

Plaintiff responds by arguing that the defendants’ position must be questioned

since they initially claimed that plaintiff had not filed a grievance and yet plaintiff was able to

produce a copy of the grievance he filed. (Pl.’s Reply at 2.) Plaintiff also contends that the

exhaustion requirement has been satisfied since he did not receive a response to his grievance

which precluded plaintiff from proceeding to the next level.4 (Id.) Plaintiff seeks the imposition

of sanctions due to defendants’ filing of an allegedly frivolous motion to dismiss. (Id. at 3-4.)

II. Exhaustion Requirement

By the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) enacted on April 26,

1996, Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, 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).

Th United States Supreme Court has ruled that exhaustion of prison

administrative procedures is mandated “regardless of the relief offered through [such]

procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The Court “will not read futility or

other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise.” 

Id. at 741 n.6 (2001). In addition, the exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about

prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they

allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

///// 

Case 2:03-cv-00119-JKS-DAD Document 48 Filed 08/04/05 Page 4 of 8
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

Under regulations governing such facilities in California, all county jails have an

administrative appeal procedure for reviewing prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §

1073. See Bokin v. Davis, No. C 01-2496 CRB (PR), 2003 WL 21920922, at *3-4 (N.D.Cal.

Aug 07, 2003); Woodall v. Martinez County Jail, No. C 01-3725 MMC(PR), 2001 WL 1382040,

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2001). In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Booth v. Churner, a

county jail inmate in California must file a jail grievance on all claims challenging jail conditions

and proceed to the highest level of administrative review available prior to bringing a § 1983

action on those claims, regardless of whether the relief sought by the inmate is available through

the jail’s administrative complaint system.

The PLRA exhaustion requirement creates a defense that defendants may raise in

an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117-19 & nn.9 & 13

(9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). “In deciding a motion

to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings

and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. “I[f] the district court looks beyond the

pleadings to a factual record in deciding the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust–a procedure

closely analogous to summary judgment–then the court must assure that [the prisoner] has fair

notice of his opportunity to develop a record.” Id. at 1120 n.14. If the court concludes that the

prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies on any claim, “the proper remedy is dismissal

of the claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120.

III. Analysis

Since defendants do not challenge the authenticity of the inmate grievance

submitted by plaintiff for the court’s review, the issue is whether plaintiff has exhausted available

administrative remedies in light of jail officials’ failure to respond to his grievance within the

time limits set forth in the state regulations. Of course, it is defendants’ burden of both raising

and proving the absence of exhaustion. Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 2005);

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. It is unclear from the record before this court whether plaintiff’s inmate

Case 2:03-cv-00119-JKS-DAD Document 48 Filed 08/04/05 Page 5 of 8
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

6

grievance was submitted to the first or second level of review. In any event, defendants argue

only that since plaintiff did not receive a decision at the third and final level of review, he failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendants’ argument, however, does not address the

fact that plaintiff submitted a grievance and that there is no evidence before the court that this

grievance was addressed by jail officials. Plaintiff contends that since he attempted to proceed

through the grievance process and received no response, he has exhausted available

administrative remedies. Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to address this issue, many Circuit

Courts have addressed the effect of prison officials' failure to respond to grievances in a timely

manner, and have held that exhaustion occurs when prison officials fail to respond to a grievance

within the applicable time limits. See Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989, 996

(6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Allen v. Correctional Corp. of America, U.S. ,

125 S. Ct. 1639 (2005) (“[W]e conclude that administrative remedies are exhausted when prison

officials fail to timely respond to a properly filed grievance.”); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d

1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e agree that the failure to respond to a grievance within the

time limits contained in the grievance policy renders an administrative remedy unavailable[.]”);

Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (“We join the Eighth and Fifth circuits

on this issue because we refuse to interpret the PLRA so narrowly as to . . . permit [prison

officials] to exploit the exhaustion requirement through indefinite delay in responding to

grievances.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687,

698 (8th Cir. 2001) (concluding that available administrative remedies were exhausted when the

prison’s failure to respond to the informal grievance precluded the inmate from filing a grievance

at the next level); Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (“A prisoner’s

administrative remedies are deemed exhausted when a valid grievance has been filed and the

state’s time for responding thereto has expired.”); Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 295 (5th

Cir. 1998) (when time limit for prison's response has expired, the remedies are exhausted). This

reasoning is persuasive. If an inmate attempts to exhaust administrative remedies, but that effort

Case 2:03-cv-00119-JKS-DAD Document 48 Filed 08/04/05 Page 6 of 8
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

7

is thwarted or ignored, the exhaustion of “available” remedies has been satisfied. Since

defendants have offered no further evidence or argument concerning plaintiff’s grievance and any

response thereto, the court finds that defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of proving the

absence of exhaustion.

IV. Plaintiff’s Additional Requests

In an untitled document, filed on March 31, 2005, plaintiff requests that the court

impose sanctions on defendants Green and Kacalek and their attorney for filing a frivolous

motion to dismiss. Plaintiff also requests that his pleading be deemed plaintiff’s amended reply

to the motion to dismiss. In light of the court’s findings and recommendations, the plaintiff’s

requests with respect to his pleading will be denied. In addition, the court does not find that there

are grounds for imposing sanctions. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 31, 2005 requests for sanctions and other orders from the

court are denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the court’s docket by changing the

spelling of defendant Krackaleck’s last name to “Kacalek.”

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on February 11, 2005, be denied; and

2. Defendants Green and Kacalek be ordered to file and serve an answer. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen

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 five days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00119-JKS-DAD Document 48 Filed 08/04/05 Page 7 of 8
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

8

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). 

DATED: August 3, 2005.

DAD:4

jone0119.mtd

Case 2:03-cv-00119-JKS-DAD Document 48 Filed 08/04/05 Page 8 of 8