Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00351/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00351-8/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 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on November 3, 2005. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 18.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CRUTCHFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0351-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

(Doc. 38)

I. Findings and Recommendations - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

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 February 14,

2005, against defendants Crutchfield and Burns (“defendants”) for retaliation, based on the allegation

that defendants removed plaintiff from his prison industry job in retaliation for advising defendants

that he intended to file a grievance. On July 7, 2006, 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. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion

on July 20, 2006 (entitled “Motion and Request that AG Explain Exhibits) and defendants filed a

reply on July 27, 2006. Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on August 9, 2007. 1

B. Exhaustion Requirement

Case 1:05-cv-00351-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 03/16/07 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

2

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), and

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).

Exhaustion of the prison’s administrative process must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

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

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

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process isinitiated by submitting a CDC

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).

Case 1:05-cv-00351-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 03/16/07 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

Defendants argue they are entitled to dismissal of this action because plaintiff failed to

exhaust his retaliation claim. Defendants contend that plaintiff submitted three inmate grievances

related to his alleged retaliatory job removal, none of which were fully exhausted. Inmate Appeal

SCC -04-01376, dated December 10, 2004, describes plaintiff’s job loss and alleges it was in reprisal

for his filing an appeal. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit A at 002. This appeal was

cancelled at the first level, on January 19, 2005 due to plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in an interview

intended to address the issues of his appeal. Ex. A at 003. 

Inmate appeal SCC 05-00020, dated December 22, 2004, again describes plaintiff’s job loss

and alleges it was in reprisal for filing an appeal relating to a classification decision. Ex. A at 005-

24. This appeal was denied at the first level on January 19, 2005. Ex. A. At 007. 

Inmate appeal SCC 05-00119, dated January 28, 2005, complained that plaintiff was

improperly being deprived of the opportunity to go to work. This appeal appears to have been

cancelled on March 2, 2005; however, there is no explanation for the cancellation and there is no

attachment to the appeal as indicated. Ex. A. At 025-28. Next in order in defendants’ exhibits is a

handwritten letter from plaintiff dated January 30, 2005 that is difficult to read and the Court cannot

ascertain whether the letter is part of the appeal or a response to the cancellation. 

Defendants also submit the Declaration of N. Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals Branch who

states that a search of the Inmate Appeals Branch database revealed that the Director has not

accepted for Director’s Level Review, appeals SCC 04-01376, SCC 05-00020 or SCC 05-00119.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit B. 

As stated in the preceding section, on an unenumerated 12(b) motion, it is defendant who

bears the burden of raising and proving the failure to exhaust. The court finds that defendants have

not met their burden. Defendants’ evidence demonstrates only that plaintiff did not pursue the

appeals to the third-level appeal. The courtrejects defendant’s argument that exhaustion occurs only

after a third-level appeal response is issued. A third-level appeal 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. The court rejects defendants’ argument that plaintiff failed to

exhaust because there is no record that he filed any third level appeals. The receipt of a Director’s

Case 1:05-cv-00351-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 03/16/07 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

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 Clement v.

California Dept. of Corr., No. C 00-1860 CW, 2002 WL 31050915, *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2002);

Brady v. Attygala, 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). Here, defendants have set forth no argument,

supported by evidence or otherwise, that plaintiff failed to file any inmate appeals grieving the facts

at issue in those claims at all or that all of plaintiff’s inmate appeals were denied at a lower level,

necessitating appeals to the third level. Rather, defendants move for dismissal relying on the

argument that there is no record that plaintiff pursued appeals concerning those claims to the third

level of review and received Director’s Level decisions. Absent a showing that plaintiff either failed

to appeal at all or failed to file a third-level appeal after receiving a denial at the lower level on all

of the relevant appeals, defendants are not entitled to dismissal of this action based on plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust. The court therefore recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure

to exhaust be denied, without prejudice.

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that defendants have not met their burden as the

parties moving for dismissal and therefore their unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice. The Court HEREBY GRANTS defendants an additional 30 days in

which to file a renewed motion to dismiss pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Rule 12(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00351-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 03/16/07 Page 4 of 4