Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01465/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01465-5/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

TOMMY L. JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1465 LKK KJM P

vs.

C.L. PARKS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Parks has filed a motion to dismiss in which he asserts

plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to plaintiff’s remaining claim.

I. Standard

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 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 of the claim without prejudice. Id.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01465-LKK -KJM Document 20 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 3
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 exhaustion requirement is rooted in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

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 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 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, unless a plaintiff demonstrates a step

is unavailable to him; 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 v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

2003).

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleges defendant Parks retaliated against plaintiff because plaintiff filed

a prisoner grievance against Parks. Am. Compl. at 7-8.

III. Analysis

Defendant Parks argues that plaintiff failed to complete the prisoner grievance

process with respect to the claim brought in this action. Mot. at 5. In support of his argument,

defendant Parks presents the affidavit of N. Grannis, an employee of CDCR who serves as the

Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch (IAB) in Sacramento, California. Mot., Ex. A. Grannis

indicates plaintiff did not file a Director’s Level Appeal with respect to the claim against

defendant Parks identified above. Id. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01465-LKK -KJM Document 20 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 Plaintiff’s opposition is mistitled a “Motion to Grant Summary Judgment,” but is 1

nevertheless properly styled an opposition. 

3

In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff argues that he submitted an a

grievance to the Director’s Level. Opp’n at 1. To support this assertion, plaintiff includes a 1

mail log and a copy of a judgment handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an

unrelated case. Id., Ex. F. However, the mail log and copy of the judgment do not show that

plaintiff submitted a grievance for “Director’s Level Review” with respect to the claim remaining

in this action. Id. 

Based upon the record before the court, plaintiff has not exhausted or attempted to

exhaust administrative remedies with respect to the claim remaining against defendant Parks

prior to plaintiff’s bringing this action. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ March 9, 2007 motion to dismiss be granted; and 

2. This case be dismissed.

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: December 3, 2007.

1/jack1465.57

Case 2:05-cv-01465-LKK -KJM Document 20 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 3