Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01483/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01483-13/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

Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims (Doc. 45). 

1

On February 7, 2007, the court issued findings and recommendations (Doc. 55) that the motion

for summary judgment be granted and that the motion to dismiss be denied as moot. On March

12, 2007, however, the District Judge issued an order declining to adopt the findings and

recommendations and concluded instead that granting summary judgment would not be

appropriate. The District Judge referred the matter back to the undersigned for consideration of

defendants’ motion to dismiss. Therefore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been

denied and the court will now address defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN ELLIS, No. CIV S-04-1483-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ALBONICO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 46) based

on lack of exhaustion. On May 10, 2005, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for 1

opposing a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. See Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988); Wyatt

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 10
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

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has filed opposition to defendants’ motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. The April 14, 2003, Incident

Defendants recite the following facts:

Plaintiff Ellis was a wheel-chair confined prisoner incarcerated at

High Desert State Prison. On April 14 2003, Ellis was wheeled into the BYard Clinic. Ellis wheeled his chair to the clinic door and stopped six

inches from Defendant Correctional Officer Albonico. Albonico ordered

Ellis to move his chair. Ellis refused and said “Fuck you.” Albonico

asked to borrow handcuffs from Defendant Medical Technical Assistant

Bates.

Albonico ordered Ellis to cuff up. Ellis refused to comply and

again responded “Fuck you.” As Albonico reached across Ellis to place

handcuffs on him, Ellis hit Albonico in the head and body with his fist. 

Ellis then reached up and grabbed Albonico. Albonico grabbed Ellis’

shoulders and took him to the ground. Ellis continued to fight. Ellis

pulled Albonico’s left arm and hand close to his mouth and bit three

fingers on Albonico’s left hand. Ellis has hepatitis C. Bates yelled for

help.

Defendant Correctional Officers Coe and Weaver rushed to the

scene. They saw Albonico struggle to remove his hand from Ellis’ mouth. 

Coe placed his thumb behind Ellis’ ear to get him to release Albonico. 

Albonico forced Ellis’ mouth open and pulled his fingers out.

Bates used his body to cover Ellis to restrain him. Weaver placed

cuffs on Ellis’ left hand. While Weaver was cuffing Ellis, Coe ordered

Ellis to put his right hand behind his back. Ellis refused Coe’s order. Ellis

grabbed his right wrist with his left hand and resisted Coe’s efforts to cuff

him. Ellis released his grip and began swinging his right arm. He then

placed his right arm under his body to prevent from being cuffed. Coe

pulled Ellis’ right arm from under his body and placed him in a wrist lock. 

Weaver secured cuffs on Ellis’ right wrist. After Ellis was cuffed, Coe

and Weaver lifted and transported him to the B-Clinic Facility floor

approximately five to ten feet away.

Ellis sustained scrapes to his right cheek, right forehead, and left

thumb, a swollen lower lip, black left eye, and a cut along his left gum.

In his “Separate Statement of Disputed Facts” submitted in opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff challenges several aspects of defendants’

story. Plaintiff states that he was wheeled to the B-Yard Clinic by another inmate and that he

was stopped and questioned by Albonico upon entering. He also states that he “was accosted

again by Albonico” after the other inmate went to the pill line. Plaintiff states that he did not

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 10
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

stop six inches from Albonico but, rather, that Albonico stopped him and asked where he was

going. According to plaintiff, he did not say “Fuck you” to Albonico but, rather, Albonico asked

why Ellis was sitting in front of his door. He also claims that he was never ordered to cuff up

but, rather, that Albonico “without cause or warning vigorously grasped Plaintiff’s wrist.” As to

the struggle, plaintiff disputes defendants’ characterization of him as the aggressor. Rather, he

asserts that Albonico was the aggressor. With respect to the finger bite, plaintiff states that

Albonico put his fingers in plaintiff’s mouth to force it open. Plaintiff denies that Albonico ever

yelled out for help. Plaintiff admits that defendant Coe ordered him to bring his right arm from

under his body to be cuffed, but states that he attempted to inform defendant Coe that his arm

was injured and that he could not comply. Finally, plaintiff states that he was dragged over 55

feet across a concrete floor to the clinic, not the five to ten claimed by defendants. 

B. Plaintiff’s Administrative Grievances

As revealed by documents attached to plaintiff’s opposition, the following is a

time line concerning grievances in this case:

April 24, 2003 Plaintiff signed his first “CDC 602" inmate grievance form,

thereby seeking to initiate the administrative review

concerning the April 14, 2003, incident. Attached to this

grievance was a hand-written statement of plaintiff’s

allegations, dated April 24, 2003. (Ex. 1).

May 13, 2003 Plaintiff signed a CDC 602 complaining that he had not

received any notification regarding the April 23, 2003,

grievance and another grievance he submitted regarding,

according to plaintiff, a “reasonable modification

accommodation form.” Specifically, plaintiff complained

that he had not been provided logging numbers for the

inmate appeals, or any notification of a responses at the

informal level. The bottom of this document bears a stamp

reading “Received By HDSP Appeals May 16 2003.” In

the box labeled “CDC Appeal Number” is written “5/16/03

8 Abuse Not Adverse.” (Ex. 2).

May 16, 2003 Date of an Appeal Screening Form with a box checked for

“Abuse of the Appeal Process.” There is a hand-written

note on the bottom of the document which reads: “You are

requesting information. You have not demonstrated an

adverse effect to your welfare.” D. Jackson and H. Wagner

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 10
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

are listed on the bottom of the document as the Appeals

Coordinators. (Ex. 3).

May 19, 2003 Plaintiff signed an Inmate Request for Interview responding

to the May 16, 2003, screening form and stating:

This is in response to your appeals screening

form, dated: 5-16-03. The adverse effect to

my welfare is: excessive force . . . used

mechanical restraints as punishment by

peace officers . . . . (Ex. 4).

May 27, 2003 Plaintiff signed a second CDC 602 concerning the April 14

incident. Plaintiff attached to this grievance a hand-written

summary of his claims, dated May 27, 2003. (Ex. 7).

June 11, 2003 Plaintiff signed another Inmate Request for Interview

complaining that he had not heard anything regarding his

April 24th or May 27th grievances. (Ex. 8).

June 29, 2003 Plaintiff signed a second CDC 602 complaining that he had

not received any notification concerning his grievances. 

The bottom of the document bears a stamp reading

“Received By HDSP Appeals July 03 2003.” (Ex. 9).

July 1, 2003 Date of a hand-written letter from plaintiff to the prison

warden complaining that the appeals coordinators here not

accepting his grievances concerning the April 14th incident. 

(Ex. 11). 

July 3, 2003 Date of another Appeals Screening Form with a box

checked indicating that the appeal is incomplete because it

is lacking a proof of claim form, and another box checked

for “Abuse of the Appeal Process.” At the bottom of the

form is the following hand-written comment: “Can’t

process an appeal that has not been received. No record of

appeal from you on 4/24/03 and 5/27.” (Ex. 10). 

July 6, 2003 Date of a hand-written letter from plaintiff to Steve White

the Inspector General for California prisons. Again,

plaintiff complained that his appeals concerning the April

14th incident were not being processed. (Ex. 13).

 

July 30, 2003 Date of a letter from the Office of the Inspector General to

plaintiff responding to the July 6th letter. (Ex. 14).

July 13, 2003 Plaintiff signed an Inmate Request for Interview stating:

On 7-9-03, I spoke with you, while in the

yard cage; concerning several 602 appeals

that I’ve sent to the appeals coordinator,

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 10
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

which I’ve yet to get any response too [sic]. 

May I have an interview with you to further

explain the problem? (Ex. 19).

July 14, 2003 Plaintiff signed another CDC 602 concerning the April 14th

incident. As with his prior grievances, plaintiff attached to

this one a summary of his claims, dated July 14, 2003. (Ex.

21). 

July 30, 2003 Plaintiff signed another Inmate Request for Interview

stating:

Sir, I spoke with you 7-10-03 concerning not

getting a response from my 602 . . . alleging

excessive use of force, by c/o Albonico, Sgt.

Coe, c/o Weaver & MTA Bates. You then

instructed me to submit another to you, 7-

14-03, which I did, and you would ensure it

is routed to H. Wagner (appeals coordinator)

for logging & Processing. Still no response!

(Ex. 20).

December 16, 2003 Date of a letter from D.L. Runnels, the prison warden, to

plaintiff. In this letter, the warden stated:

In your letter you claim that staff used

inappropriate force upon you during an

incident which occurred on April 14, 2003. 

You also report that you have not received a

response to an appeal submitted by you

regarding this matter. [¶] The High Desert

State Prison Appeals Office reports that they

have not received an appeal from you

regarding your allegations of staff

misconduct. Regardless of that

circumstance, a formal investigation into the

matter is being conducted. If misconduct by

the employees connected to this complaint is

discovered, corrective measures will be

taken. . . . [¶] Based upon the above, the

issues raised within your correspondence

have been satisfactorily addressed. (Ex.

23).

December 18, 2003 Plaintiff signed a 602 seeking higher level review of

the warden’s response. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 5 of 10
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

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies is properly

the subject of a motion to dismiss as an unenumerated motion under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b). See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). “In deciding a

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, the court may look beyond the

pleading and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. If the court concludes that

administrative remedies have not been exhausted, the unexhausted claim should be dismissed

without prejudice. See id. at 1120. 

III. DISCUSSION

In their motion to dismiss, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

available administrative remedies before filing this action. Prisoners seeking relief under § 1983

must exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a). This requirement is mandatory regardless of the relief sought. See Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (overruling Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

Because exhaustion must precede the filing of the complaint, compliance with § 1997e(a) is not

achieved by exhausting administrative remedies while the lawsuit is pending. See McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court recently addressed the

exhaustion requirement in Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007), and held: (1) prisoners are not

required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in the complaint because lack of

exhaustion is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded and proved by the defendants; (2) an

individual named as a defendant does not necessarily need to be named in the grievance process

for exhaustion to be considered adequate because the applicable procedural rules that a prisoner

must follow are defined by the particular grievance process, not by the PLRA; and (3) the PLRA

does not require dismissal of the entire complaint if only some, but not all, claims are

unexhausted. The Supreme Court also held in Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2385-88

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 6 of 10
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

(2006), that, in order to exhaust administrative remedies, the prisoner must comply with all of the

prison system’s procedural rules and that partial compliance is not enough.

A prison inmate in California satisfies the administrative exhaustion requirement

by following the procedures set forth in §§ 3084.1-3084.7 of Title 15 of the California Code of

Regulations. In California, inmates “may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or

policy which they can demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). These regulations require the prisoner to proceed through several

levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution; (2) formal appeal; (3) second level appeal to institution

head; (4) third level appeal to the director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation. A decision at the third formal level, which is also referred to as the director’s

level, is not appealable and concludes a prisoner’s departmental administrative remedy. See Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1(a) and 3084.5(e)(2). Departmental appeals coordinators may

summarily deny a prisoner’s untimely administrative appeal. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§

3084.3(c)(6) and 3084.6(c). If a group of inmates intend to appeal the same decision or action,

one grievance form is used and a list of the participating inmates must be attached. The list must

be legible and state the inmates’ names, departmental identification numbers, and housing

assignment. The form must also be signed by all participating inmates. Currently, California

regulations do not contain any provision specifying who must be named in the grievance. 

In support of their motion, defendants submit the declaration of S. Babich, the

Appeal Coordinator at High Desert State Prison, who states: “At the request of the Office of the

Attorney General, I have conducted a search of inmate Ellis’ . . . appeal file. The appeals office

at HDSP does not have any record or copies of Inmate Appeal Form 602s submitte by inmate

Ellis, which were accepted for review concerning incidents of excessive force occurring on April

14, 2003.” Defendants also provide the declaration of N. Grannis, the chief of the inmate appeals

branch, who states that there is no record of a Director’s Level appeal. Defendants conclude that,

because there is no record of a grievance concerning the April 14th incident, plaintiff must have

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 7 of 10
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

failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, defendants bear the burden of

proof. See Jones, 127 S.Ct. 910. Based on the time line outlined above, the court finds that

defendants have not met their burden of establishing that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative

remedies. While the copy of plaintiff’s April 24, 2003, inmate grievance does not bear any

stamp indicating that it was received, the copy of the May 13, 2003, appeal does. In the May

13th appeal, plaintiff complained that his April 24th appeal had not been processed. Thus, the

appeals department at High Desert State Prison was aware as early as May 13, 2003, that plaintiff

had a grievance concerning the April 14th incident. Plaintiff also submitted several interview

requests regarding the problem with his appeals and, in response to one such interview,

resubmitted his initial grievance about the April 14th incident. 

In addition, warden D.L. Runnels responded to plaintiff’s letter by stating that,

regardless of the circumstance of the appeals department being unable to locate any record of an

appeal, an investigation into the April 14th incident would be initiated. This could be viewed as

a waiver of the requirement to submit an informal level or a first level appeal. In any event, the

warden – who would provide the second level response to an inmate appeal – responded to

plaintiff’s letter by stating that an investigation would be conducted. The warden concluded his

letter with the specific remark that this was a satisfactory response to plaintiff’s complaint. This

could certainly be viewed as a response at the second formal level of review. Finally, it appears

that plaintiff sought a higher level of review with the grievance signed in December 2003. 

As to the declaration provided by S. Babich, who states that there is no record of a

grievance concerning the April 14th incident having been accepted for review, the court finds

this evidence unpersuasive on the point of exhaustion. Accepting as true the declarant’s

statement that no inmate grievance was accepted for processing, that does not also mean that

plaintiff did not submit an appeal. On this point, plaintiff has provided enough evidence to

indicate that he made every possible effort to submit grievances. 

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 8 of 10
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

Defendants do not deny plaintiff’s assertions that his other grievances were on 2

record. 

9

The court is troubled by defendants’ position that, if the appeals coordinators state

that they cannot find any record of a particular grievance having been accepted, this is evidence

of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. First, this argument is illogical because absence

of evidence is not evidence of absence. Second, there is a difference between a grievance having

been submitted and accepted. If the court were to accept this argument, it would mean that, in

order to prevent exhaustion in every instance, prison officials would need only prevent 

grievances from being accepted by not sending them to the appeals coordinators. Perhaps a

better system for submitting and logging inmate grievances would allow defendants to rely on

this kind of argument. For example, all inmate grievances could be stamped by correctional

officials at the point they are submitted at the first informal level, regardless of whether they are

eventually accepted as procedurally proper in the formal context. Finally, it is curious that

plaintiff’s other appeals (i.e., concerning access to a wheelchair and other accommodations) were

apparently accepted and logged and his complaint of staff misconduct was not. 

2

In any event, it is enough to say that the evidence supplied by defendants in this

case is inadequate to establish that plaintiff failed to exhaust. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120. In

light of plaintiff’s evidence to the contrary, defendants have not met their burden of proof. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 46) be denied; and

2. This matter be referred back to the undersigned for issuance of such orders

as are necessary and appropriate to advance this case to trial.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 9 of 10
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

10

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 10 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: March 14, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/15/07 Page 10 of 10