Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02359/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02359-1/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

 Although plaintiff raised an equal protection challenge and a cause of action under

California Penal Code section 4029 in his complaint, the court ordered it served as to the Age

Discrimination Act claim only. Order of September 22, 2004. While plaintiff argues his equal

protection challenge in response to defendants’ motion, this claim is not before the court. 

2

 Page cites to the complaint are to the pages attached to the form complaint. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINTON SHORTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2359 LKK KJM P

vs.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al., ORDER AND 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with an action under the federal

Age Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6101, et al.1 He alleges that defendants offered a federally

funded education program to inmates twenty five years old or younger, serving a term of five

years or less, but denied similar educational opportunities to him, a forty-two year old inmate

serving a life term, who has been directed by the Parole Board to seek academic and vocational

programs and life skills. Amended Complaint (Am. Compl.) at 1-22 & Ex. 4. 

///// 

Case 2:03-cv-02359-LKK -KJM Document 30 Filed 08/23/05 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

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that plaintiff has not

exhausted his administrative remedies as to the Age Discrimination Act claim and that

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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.), cert. denied sub nom. Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (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 1119-20. Defendants bear the

burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, even in the non-prison

context. Id. at 1119; Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Services, Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1180 (9th Cir. 

1988); Ritza v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368

(9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 

The Age Discrimination Act provides, in pertinent part:

(e) Injunctions; notice of violations; costs; conditions for actions

(1) When any interested person brings an action in any United

States district court for the district in which the defendant is found

or transacts business to enjoin a violation of this Act by any

program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, such

interested person shall give notice by registered mail not less than

30 days prior to the commencement of that action to the Secretary

of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General of the United

States, and the person against whom the action is directed. Such

interested person may elect, by a demand for such relief in his

complaint, to recover reasonable attorney's fees, in which case the

court shall award the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's

fee, to the prevailing plaintiff.

(2) The notice referred to in paragraph (1) shall state the nature of

the alleged violation, the relief to be requested, the court in which

the action will be brought, and whether or not attorney's fees are

being demanded in the event that the plaintiff prevails. No action

described in paragraph (1) shall be brought (A) if at the time the

action is brought the same alleged violation by the same defendant

is the subject of a pending action in any court of the United States;

or (B) if administrative remedies have not been exhausted.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02359-LKK -KJM Document 30 Filed 08/23/05 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

(f) Exhaustion of administrative remedies

With respect to actions brought for relief based on an alleged

violation of the provisions of this chapter, administrative remedies

shall be deemed exhausted upon the expiration of 180 days from

the filing of an administrative complaint during which time the

Federal department or agency makes no finding with regard to the

complaint, or upon the day that the Federal department or agency

issues a finding in favor of the recipient of financial assistance,

whichever occurs first.

42 U.S.C. § 6104. If administrative remedies have not been exhausted, a complaint or portion of

a complaint alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination Act must be dismissed. 

Brownscombe v. Department of Campus Parking, 203 F. Supp. 2d 479, 483 (D.Md. 2002). 

Defendants have alleged that plaintiff did not exhaust his remedies under the act,

but have presented no documentation supporting their claim. Mem. P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to

Dismiss (MTD) at 4-5. Plaintiff, however, acknowledges he failed to follow the exhaustion

procedures set forth in the Age Discrimination Act. He notes that he wrote to the “Social

Services Department,” inquiring about funding or grant programs; the response from the

Department of Education referred him to a publication, The Student Guide, for further

information. Opp’n at 1 & Ex. A. The letter shows that plaintiff was seeking funding, not filing

an administrative complaint as required by the act. 

As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, a prisoner’s concession of failure to exhaust

is a proper basis for dismissal. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120. Plaintiff has admitted he failed to

follow the appropriate procedures to exhaust the complaint he now raises. He asks for a stay,

however, to enable him to complete the necessary exhaustion. The appropriate action, however,

is dismissal. Brownscombe, 203 F. Supp. 2d at 483; Popkins v. Zagel, 611 F. Supp. 809, 812

(C.D. Ill. 1985).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 24, 2005 request for a stay is

denied.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02359-LKK -KJM Document 30 Filed 08/23/05 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ 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 five 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: August 23, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/shor2359.57

Case 2:03-cv-02359-LKK -KJM Document 30 Filed 08/23/05 Page 4 of 4