Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01035/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01035-6/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

JULIUS CARTER ANDERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1035 LKK KJM P

vs.

MENDOZA, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Mendoza has filed a motion asking that this

matter be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to

his claims prior to filing suit.

A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing

suit arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust non-judicial

remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 

1120. If the district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted non-judicial remedies,

the proper remedy is dismissal. Id.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01035-LKK -KJM Document 25 Filed 02/04/08 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

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). California prison regulations

provide administrative procedures in the form of one informal and three formal levels of review

to address plaintiff’s claims. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.7. Administrative

procedures generally are exhausted once a prisoner has received a “Director’s Level Decision,”

or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. All

steps must be completed before a civil rights action is filed; exhaustion during the pendency of

the litigation will not save an action from dismissal. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200

(9th Cir. 2002). Defendants bear the burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119. Once defendants satisfy their burden, which can be accomplished by pointing to

the absence of any record of a plaintiff’s attempting to exhaust, the burden shifts to plaintiff to in

fact demonstrate exhaustion.

In his complaint, plaintiff claims that on September 18, 2004, defendant Mendoza

failed to obtain medical treatment for plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff’s filing a lawsuit against

Mendoza. Am. Compl. at 5-6, ¶¶ 1-17. In his motion, defendant Mendoza presents the affidavit

of the Appeals Coordinator at plaintiff’s place of incarceration, verifying that there is no record

of plaintiff’s grieving his concerns through the initial steps of the established procedures. Def’t’s

Mot. To Dismiss, Decl. Of M. Cry. Defendant also presents the affidavit of the Chief of the

Inmate Appeals Branch, who represents there is no record of plaintiff having exhausted any

grievance related to the claims in the complaint through the Director’s Level. Id., Decl. Of N.

Grannis. 

In his opposition to defendant Mendoza’s motion, which is verified, plaintiff

asserts that he submitted a grievance concerning the facts supporting his claims to M. Cry, and

that the grievance was returned to plaintiff without comment. Opp’n at 3; see also Am. Compl.

at 8, ¶¶ 32-33. Plaintiff’s “grievance” is attached as Exhibit A to his opposition. The grievance

Case 2:05-cv-01035-LKK -KJM Document 25 Filed 02/04/08 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

as thus provided is a type-written narrative, not completed on any form, and not bearing any dates

or “date received” stamps. Plaintiff says he submitted a follow-up letter to Cry on October 26,

2004, and attaches at least a portion of what was submitted. Opp’n, Ex. B. This letter, he says,

also was returned to plaintiff. Id. at 3. Thereafter, plaintiff avers he submitted his “grievance” to

the Director’s Level, id., but he does not attach a copy of what he says he submitted at this level,

and he does not indicate what kind of response, if any, he received from the Director. Plaintiff

does, however, attach copies of other documents he suggests demonstrate exhaustion of

additional avenues available outside the prison grievance procedure. Id., Exs. C-F (letters to

plaintiff confirming receipt of complaints from California Medical Board, Office of Inspector

General, Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, Solano County Grand Jury). 

Plaintiff’s opposition, when viewed in its entirety, does not provide a basis for this court to find

that plaintiff in fact exhausted the prison grievance process as available to him through the

Director’s Level. 

Defendant Mendoza having met his burden, and plaintiff having failed to

overcome the burden shifted to him, this court will recommend that the motion to dismiss be

granted, and that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to properly exhaust administrative

remedies prior to filing suit.

On August 23, 2007, plaintiff asked that this matter be stayed in light of plaintiff’s

health problems. In light of the foregoing, and because denial of a stay will not prejudice

plaintiff at this point, that request will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August

23, 2007 “request for a time-extension” is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Mendoza’s May 2, 2007 motion to dismiss be granted; and 

2. This action be dismissed. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01035-LKK -KJM Document 25 Filed 02/04/08 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

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: February 1, 2008. 

1

ande1035.57

Case 2:05-cv-01035-LKK -KJM Document 25 Filed 02/04/08 Page 4 of 4