Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464-1/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

27

28

1

 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion

on November 4, 2004. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 15.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAHAM ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. COFFEE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6464-REC-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE DENIED

(Doc. 26)

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Abraham Romero (“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 August 25, 2003, against defendants Coffee, Wilson, Baptiste, and

Samms (“defendants”) under section 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth

Amendment, and under California law for assault and battery. On March 25, 2005, pursuant to the

unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants filed a motion to dismiss

for failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff filed an opposition

to the motion on April 15, 2005,1 and defendants filed a reply on April 21, 2005. (Docs. 28, 29.)

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 32 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 5
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

B. Exhaustion Requirement

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).

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).

“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards,

nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S.

at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at

1199-1201. 

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which

they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at 3084.1(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.” Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5

(2005). 

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

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 32 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 5
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

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

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s excessive force, and assault and battery claims. The

events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred at the California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California on January 15, 2003.

In their motion to dismiss, defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal of this action

because plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies with respect to the claims

in this action. (Doc. 26, Motion.) In support of their motion, defendants submit evidence that

plaintiff filed an appeal in February of 2003, which was ultimately granted at the second level of

review. (Id., Acuna Dec., Attach. p. 1-7.) Although plaintiff attempted to pursue the appeal to the

Director’s level, it was rejected because it had been granted at the second level. (Id., Grannis Dec.,

¶ 4.) The appeal, log number 03-01119, was initiated to grieve plaintiff’s placement in

administrative segregation. (Id., Acuna Dec., Attach. p. 1.) Although after initiating the appeal

plaintiff attempted to expand the appeal issue to include the incident of force, plaintiff was informed

that he could not do so and if he wanted to appeal the force issue, he needed to file a new appeal.

(Id., Acuna Dec., Attach. p. 1-7.) 

In addition, defendants submit evidence that on March 9, 2003, plaintiff filed another appeal

concerning his missing personal property. (Id., Acuna Dec., Attach. p. 24-25.) This appeal, log

number 03-01147, was granted at the second level of review and did not include the issue relating

to the incident of force. (Id., Acuna Dec., Attach. pgs. 24-27.) Defendants contend that neither

appeal is sufficient to exhaust the claims in this action, and that they are entitled to dismissal.

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that he did exhaust. (Doc. 28, Opp.) In addition to the two

inmate appeals identified by defendants, plaintiff submits evidence that on August 5, 2003, he filed

an inmate appeal grieving the incident of force at issue in this action. (Id., Exhibit 2, p. 3.) On

August 7, 2003, the appeal was screened out by the appeals coordinator on the ground that it was

untimely. (Id., p. 1.) Plaintiff wrote a letter to the appeals coordinator on August 19, 2003, stating

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 32 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 5
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

that he believed his appeal had been wrongly rejected. (Id., p. 2.) The appeal form bears a second

date stamp for August 20, 2005, and bears the notation “rejected.” (Id., p. 3.)

Satisfaction of the exhaustion requirement does not require that inmates draft grievanceswith

the precision of an attorney, laying out every fact, identifying every defendant by name, and

identifying which constitutional rights were violated by which actions or omissions. However,

satisfaction of the exhaustion requirement requires that inmates, in their grievances, place prison

personnel on fair notice as to the events that subsequently give rise to suit. In this instance, the

appeals concerning placement in administrative segregation and the loss of personal property do not

satisfy the exhaustion requirement with respect to the claims in this action. Therefore, neither log

number 03-01119, filed in February of 2003, nor log number 03-01147, filed in March of 2003,

demonstrate that plaintiff exhausted.

Plaintiff’s third appeal does, however. Although defendants argue in their reply that plaintiff

may not fail to timely appeal the force issue and then claim exhaustion has occurred, plaintiff may

now do exactly that. In this Circuit, exhaustion occurs when all avenues of administrative relief

available are completed. Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, the

“exhaustion requirement does not bar subsequent judicial consideration of an exhausted

administrative appeal that was denied on state procedural grounds.” Id. 

In this instance, plaintiff did not attempt to appeal his excessive force, and assault and battery

claims until August 5, 2003. The appeals coordinator thereafter exercised his or her discretion to

twice screen out plaintiff’s appeal as untimely. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo, the

appeals coordinator’s decision to screen out plaintiff’s appeal as untimely ends the exhaustion

inquiry. Id. at 631. Exhaustion occurred when plaintiff’s appeal was barred by the appeals

coordinator on procedural grounds and “no further level of appeal remained in the state prison’s

internal appeals process.” Id. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff exhausted his claims and

recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust be

denied. 

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 32 Filed 08/30/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

D. Conclusion

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed March 25, 2005, be DENIED on the ground that exhaustion

occurred in August of 2003, when plaintiff’s appeal was screened out.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 32 Filed 08/30/05 Page 5 of 5