Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02548-14/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS SOLIS ARREOLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2548 DFL GGH P

vs.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant Naku’s motion to dismiss pursuant to

Fed. R Civ. P. 12(b) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed June 26, 2006. 

Defendant also states that he is bringing his motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for

failure to state a claim. However, defendant’s motion contains no argument that plaintiff has

failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Accordingly, defendant’s motion pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is disregarded.

On September 8, 2006, the court recommended that defendant Naku’s motion to

dismiss be denied. After reviewing defendants’ objections, on November 1, 2006, the court

vacated the findings and recommendations and ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant’s

motion should not be granted. On November 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to the show

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 35 Filed 12/15/06 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

2

cause order. After carefully considering the record, the court recommends that defendant’s

motion be granted.

Plaintiff originally filed this action in the United States District for the Northern

District of California on November 17, 2005. On December 15, 2005, the Northern District

transferred this action to this court.

This action is now proceeding on the amended complaint filed January 30, 2006,

as to defendants Naku and Solomon. The pending motion is made on behalf of defendant Naku

only. In this action, plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical care. As to defendant

Naku, plaintiff alleges that on December 15, 2004, defendant Naku prescribed medication for

him without knowing what was wrong. Plaintiff claims that the medication made him feel

worse.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 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.” In order for California prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies, they must

proceed through several levels of administrative appeal: 1) informal resolution, 2) formal written

appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, 3) second level appeal to the institution head or

designee, and 4) third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. 

Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 

3084.5). A final decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion

requirement. Id. at 1237-38.

In Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001) the Supreme Court held that inmates

must exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures. 121 S. Ct. at 1825. Therefore, inmates seeking money damages must completely

exhaust their administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 35 Filed 12/15/06 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

3

exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002).

Defendant submitted two declarations in support of the pending motion. 

According to N. Grannis, Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch for the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, plaintiff has filed two administrative appeals regarding medical

care: no. SOL 05-607 and 06-823. Motion to Dismiss, Grannis Declaration, ¶ 5. Appeal no. 05-

607 was denied at the Director’s Level on May 25, 2006. Id., ¶ 6. Appeal no. 06-823 is still

pending at the Director’s Level. Id., ¶ 7. 

Because plaintiff’s Director’s Level Appeal in 05-607 was inexplicably denied

well after the time had run for prison officials to respond, the court originally recommended that

defendant’s motion be denied. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(b)(6)(third level responses

to appeals are to be completed 60 working days after receipt of appeal); §

3084.6(c)(administrative appeals are to be submitted within 15 working days of decision being

appealed); Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292 (5 Cir. 1998)(prisoner has exhausted th

administrative remedies when prison officials fail to respond within time required).

In his objections, defendant stated that plaintiff did not file his Director’s Level

Appeal in 05-607 until April 1, 2006, i.e. over ten months after he received his second level

response on May 11, 2005. The regulations required plaintiff to file his Director’s Level appeal

within 15 working days of the May 11, 2005, response to his second level appeal. Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(c). For this reason, defendant argued that plaintiff caused his own delay in

obtaining his Director’s Level response. In other words, prison officials did not fail to timely

respond to his Director’s Level Appeal. 

In his November 13, 2006, pleading, plaintiff states that he did not file a timely

Director’s Level appeal in 05-607 because “imminent life threatening systems had gripped him in

a way that the law of self preservation and fear made him bypass administrative remedies.” 

November 13, 2006, pleading, p. 2. Plaintiff states that he did not timely file his Director’s Level

appeal because the medical staff were ignoring his complaints. Instead, plaintiff sought relief in

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 35 Filed 12/15/06 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

4

state court by way of habeas corpus petitions. 

Plaintiff’s claim that the response to his Director’s Level appeal would not

adequately address his medical concerns does not excuse his failure to timely exhaust his

administrative remedies. Nothing prevented plaintiff from simultaneously pursuing both

administrative remedies and state court actions regarding his medical care. 

Plaintiff’s own failure to follow the regulations regarding the time for filing

grievances caused him to exhaust administrative remedies after he filed this action. Accordingly,

defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.

2002)(42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Naku’s June 26,

2006, motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies be granted. 

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 twenty

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 ten days after service of the objections. 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). 

DATED: 12/15/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

arr2548.mtd(2)

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 35 Filed 12/15/06 Page 4 of 4