Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05287/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05287-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE R. JONES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-cv-05287-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING MOTION TO DISMISS

FILED BY DEFENDANTS LOO, NEUBARTH,

HUANG, ORTIZ, AND McVICAR BE DENIED 

(Doc. 142)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Findings and Recommendations - Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

I. Procedural History

Tyrone R. Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

commencing this action on March 12, 2001. (Doc. 1.) This Court screened the Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on October 9, 2001, directing the United

States Marshal to serve process on Defendants G. Lewis, Ducray, L.B. McVicar, W. Buehler,

J.C. Smith, V.M. McKnight, W.R. Williams, L. Loo, J. Neubarth, R. Ortiz, H. Huang, C.J.

Sanchez, C. Murtaugh, Davis, Cantu, Tress, and Stephens. (Doc. 9.) 1

On November 29, 2001, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint based on

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and on March 6, 2002, Defendants filed an

All of these seventeen defendants have since appeared in this action, via motions to dismiss.

1

1

Case 1:01-cv-05287-AWI -SMS Document 149 Filed 05/28/10 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

amended motion to dismiss. (Docs. 33, 48.) On March 10, 2003, this Court denied the motion,

with leave to renew it in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Wyatt v. Terhune, 315

F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). (Docs. 81, 91.)

On March 31, 2003, Defendants renewed the motion to dismiss the complaint based on

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 97.) On March 11, 2004, the

renewed motion was granted in part and denied in part, leaving the case to proceed only against

Defendants Cantu and Davis on Plaintiff’s excessive force claims, and dismissing all other

claims and Defendants. (Docs. 107, 109.)

On March 25, 2004, Defendants Cantu and Davis filed their Answer to the Complaint. 

(Doc. 110.) On April 15, 2004, this Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order setting pretrial

deadlines. (Doc. 111.) On May 11, 2004, Defendants Cantu and Davis filed a motion to dismiss

the Complaint based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies on the excessive

force claim. (Doc. 114.) On January 19, 2005, the motion was granted, and the case was

dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. (Docs. 121, 122.) Judgment was entered on January

19, 2005. (Doc. 123.) 

On January 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 124.) On May 26, 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in

part the district court’s judgment, remanding the action. (Doc. 133.) The judgment was affirmed

as to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Murtaugh regarding

sleep deprivation, Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against defendants Davis and Cantu,

Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim regarding access to prescription medication, and

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim concerning Plaintiff’s placement in administrative segregation. The

judgment was vacated as to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims regarding

treatment of his bunions, hemorrhoids and skin condition, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision

in Griffin v Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court reopened the case on June

2, 2009. This case now proceeds only against Defendants Dr. Larry Loo, Dr. Neuberth, Dr.

Huang, Dr. Ortiz, and McVicar, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for inadequate medical

care related to his bunions, hemorrhoids, and skin condition. (Doc. 137.)

2

Case 1:01-cv-05287-AWI -SMS Document 149 Filed 05/28/10 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

On February 10, 2010, Defendants Dr. Larry Loo, Dr. Neuberth, Dr. Huang, Dr. Ortiz,

and McVicar filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 

(Doc. 142.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 22, 2010. (Doc. 145.) Defendants filed a

reply on February 26, 2010. (Doc. 146.) The motion has been deemed submitted. Local Rule

230(l). 

II. Failure to Exhaust

A. Legal Standard

Defendants argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims in compliance with 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a), subjecting the claims to dismissal. 

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that “[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.” Prisoners are required to exhaust the

available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007);

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required

regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process,

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all

prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative

grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (West 2009). The

process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(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.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted

within fifteen working days of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by

submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal level. 

Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). In order to satisfy section 1997e(a), California state prisoners are

required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548

U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

3

Case 1:01-cv-05287-AWI -SMS Document 149 Filed 05/28/10 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

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative

defense under which Defendant has 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, a 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.

B. Discussion

1. Plaintiff’s Claims

As previously stated, this case is proceeding only against Defendants Dr. Larry Loo, Dr.

Neuberth, Dr. Huang, Dr. Ortiz, and McVicar, on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for

inadequate medical care related to his bunions, hemorrhoids, and a facial skin condition relative

to shaving. (Doc. 137.)

2. Exhaustion of Eighth Amendment Claim

a. Summary of Relevant Appeals

Defendants submit the following regarding Plaintiff’s inmate appeals on the three medical

conditions still at issue in this action: 

Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance at the informal level on January

11, 2001, stating that he was not being provided treatment for his hemorrhoids. (CD 

1 at Ex. 2.) This appeal was partially granted at the informal level. (Id.) Plaintiff failed 

to seek a first or second level review. (Duran Decl., Ex. A and A-1.)

On January 27, 2000 Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance

(PVSP-D-00-00586) requesting that he be fitted for and provided orthopedic shoes. 

(CD 1 at Ex. 3.) This appeal was partially granted at the second level of review, and

Plaintiff was scheduled for an orthopedic consult. (Id.; Duran Decl., Ex. A and A-1.)

Plaintiff did not seek a Director’s level review. (Duran Decl., Ex. A and A-1; Grannis

Decl., Ex. B.)

Plaintiff filed two administrative grievances pertaining to shaving. The first, 

filed on September 15, 2000, (PVSP-C-00-01812) requests that his rules violation, 

for not complying with grooming standards, be dismissed because the medical

department issued a chrono allowing him to have a beard. (CD 1 at Ex. 14 and 11.)

Plaintiff’s grievance was denied at the second level of review and he did not seek a

4

Case 1:01-cv-05287-AWI -SMS Document 149 Filed 05/28/10 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

Director’s level review. (Id.; Duran Decl., Ex. A and A-1; Grannis Decl., Ex. B.)

Plaintiff filed a second grievance on September 27, 2000, in which he complains that 

his medical chrono was not renewed by medical staff. (CD 1 at Ex. 11.) This appeal 

was partially granted at the informal level and Plaintiff did not seek a first or second 

level review. (Id. l Duran Decl., Ex. A and A-1.)

(Doc. 142-2, MTD P&A,3:10-4:2.)2

b. Sufficiency of the Appeals

A grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories unless they are in some

way needed to provide notice of the harm being grieved. Griffin v. Arpaio 557 F.3d 1117, 1120

(9th Cir. 2009). A grievance also need not contain every fact necessary to prove each element of

an eventual legal claim. Id. “[W]hen a prison’s grievance procedures are silent or incomplete as

to factual specificity, ‘a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for

which redress is sought.’” Id. citing Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002). “The

primary purpose of a grievance is to notify the prison of a problem and facilitate its resolution,

not to lay groundwork for litigation.” Id. ref Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (2004) cited

with approval in Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007). A prisoner’s grievance(s) must

“provide enough information . . . to allow prison officials to take appropriate responsive

measures.” Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691, 697 (2nd Cir. 2004).

In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, prisoners are required to comply with the

applicable procedural rules governing the appeals process, and it is the appeals process itself

which defines the level of detail necessary in an appeal. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218; Griffin, 557

F.3d at 1120. In California, prisoners are required only to describe the problem and the action

requested. Tit. 15 § 3084.2(a). Therefore, the appeal is sufficient “‘if it alerts the prison to the

nature of the wrong for which redress is sought,’” Griffin at 1120 (quoting Strong v. David, 297

F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002) and adopting the Strong standard), which “advances the primary

purpose of . . . notify[ing] the prison of a problem,” id. (citation omitted). Further, a prisoner

exhausts the administrative process when the prison officials purport to grant relief that resolves

The Court is far from enamored with the manner in which Defendants presented their evidentiary exhibits.

2

Grouping Exhibit C into two voluminous parts, without further sub-categorizing, or even page numbering, and then

only referring to either part of Exhibit C caused the Court to review over one hundred (100) pages of material – of

which only approximately twelve pages addressed any of Plaintiff’s three medical issues remaining in the case.

5

Case 1:01-cv-05287-AWI -SMS Document 149 Filed 05/28/10 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

his due process grievance to his satisfaction. Harvey v. Jordan, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1903994,

(9th Cir. 2010) (finding prisoner had exhausted where his inmate appeal received a “partial

grant”). 

Applying the standards set forth in Griffin, Plaintiff’s January 11, 2001 inmate appeal in

which he complained that he was not being provided treatment for his hemorrhoids would suffice

to notify prison personnel of the problem – i.e. that he was not receiving sufficient medical care

and treatment for his hemorrhoids. Plaintiff’s January 27, 2000 inmate appeal requesting that he

be fitted for and provided orthopedic shoes would also suffice under Griffin to notify prison

personnel of the problem he was having regarding his feet (even though it did not specifically

identify his bunions). Finally, Plaintiff’s two administrative grievances pertaining to his skin

condition, shaving, and Plaintiff’s desire to be able to grow a beard, filed on September 15, 2000

and September 27, 2000 would suffice under Griffin standards to notify prison personnel of the

problem he was having regarding being forced to shave despite having a facial skin condition. 

Thus, Plaintiff sufficiently described his complaints regarding each of these three medical

conditions in his inmate appeals to have notified prison personnel of the problems he desired to

be rectified. 

Further, the bases presented by Defendants in support of their motion show that Plaintiff

received a partial grant on his inmate appeals as to all three of the medical issues upon which

remain in this action – his hemorrhoids, the bunions on his feet, and his skin condition relative to

shaving. Receipt of the partial grants to Plaintiff’s inmate appeals qualified as exhausting the

available administrative remedies. Harvey, 2010 WL 1903994. Plaintiff properly filed suit on

his claims after he received partial grants to his inmate appeals. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 211. 

Accordingly, Defendants have not met their burden of raising and proving the absence of

exhaustion by Plaintiff of his available administrative remedies so as to merit granting their

motion to dismiss. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss

filed by Defendants Look, Neuberth, Huang, Ortiz, and McVicar, filed on February 10, 2010, be

6

Case 1:01-cv-05287-AWI -SMS Document 149 Filed 05/28/10 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

denied.

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: May 27, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:01-cv-05287-AWI -SMS Document 149 Filed 05/28/10 Page 7 of 7