Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05779/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05779-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY ROYCE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALVIDREZ, et. al., 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 05779 AWI SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING THE DEFENDANTS MOTION

TO DISMISS (Doc. 43)

A. INTRODUCTION

Jimmy Royce Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his original

Complaint on May 28, 2004, for conspiracy and excessive force against Defendants J. Alvidrez,

W. Childers, W. Kirby, T. Wilson, T. Mosley, and G. Hensley. The Court found that Plaintiff

made a cognizable claim against Defendants J. Alvidrez, W. Childers, W. Kirby, T. Mosley, and

G. Hensley, but not T. Wilson, for excessive force. The Court found Plaintiff did not state a

claim for relief in alleging a conspiracy by Defendants. Thus, on November 14, 2005, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint with leave to amend to cure those deficiencies. 

Plaintiff informed the Court on November 28, 2005, November 30, 2005, and 

December 7, 2005, that he did not want to file an Amended Complaint, but instead wished to

proceed on those claims found to be cognizable by the Court. The Court made a

recommendation on December 12, 2005, that the conspiracy claim be dismissed. On 

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 48 Filed 07/19/06 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

27

28

2

February, 15, 2005, the District Court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the conspiracy

claim. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 19, 2006, for failure to exhaust the

administrative remedies in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff filed an Opposition

to Defendants Motion on June 1, 2006.

B. UNENUMERATED 12(B) MOTION TO DISMISS - EXHAUSTION 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 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 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). 

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 (2004). 

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). Based on the general

principle that summary judgment is on the merits while dismissal of an action for failure to

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 48 Filed 07/19/06 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

27

28

3

exhaust is not on the merits, the failure to exhaust non-judicial 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 (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). In

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. 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. ANALYSIS

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on January 13, 2004, Defendants Alvidrez and

Childers entered his cell and assaulted Plaintiff by hitting him with closed fist. Defendants

Kirby, Mosley, and Hensley arrived seconds later, handcuffed Plaintiff, placed him in leg irons,

and then began to kick him violently in the head and body. Defendants Kirby and Mosley pushed

Plaintiff out of his cell and again hit him numerous times in the face. Plaintiff states he was

given five stitches above his eye, a black eye, fractured jaw, broken foot, and multiple abrasions

all over his body as a result of the attack. 

Defendants argue they are entitled to dismissal of this action because Plaintiff failed to

exhaust the administrative remedies. Defendants submit a Memorandum of Points and

Authorities, and declarations from N. Grannis and A. Altnow. In the Memorandum of Points and

Authorities, Defendants state that Plaintiff appealed to the second level of review. (Memorandum

of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss [hereinafter

“Memorandum”], p. 4). In Plaintiff’s appeal, he requested an investigation into inappropriate

and unprofessional behavior, abuse of authority, and excessive force for appropriate criminal

charges to be filed against Alvidrez, Childers, Kirby, Mosley, and Hensley. (Id.) Defendants

concede that the investigation request was partially granted at the second level of review on 

April 30, 2004, however, this was with regard to Plaintiff’s request for an investigation. 

(Declaration of A. Altnow in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 4). Plaintiff was

informed that he could appeal the decision to the next level. Id. However, Plaintiff did not

appeal his excessive force claim to the third and final level of review as required by California

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 48 Filed 07/19/06 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

27

28

4

regulations. (Memorandum, p. 4-5). In support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, N. Grannis,

Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch at CDC, states in his declaration that there is no record

Plaintiff submitted an appeal to the Director’s level of review concerning his excessive force

claim. (Declaration of N.Grannis in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss ¶ 4). 

Although Plaintiff filed an Opposition, he does not contradict Defendants’ allegation

about his appeal being partially granted at the second level in his Opposition or his failure to

appeal his excessive force claim to the next level. In fact, Plaintiff merely addresses his

investigation request in his Opposition. The grant or denial of a request for investigation is not

an issue in this case. Accordingly, based on the evidence before the Court, the Court finds

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies with regard to the claim of excessive

force. 

D. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiffs failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies be

GRANTED and the case be DISMISSED in its entirety and without prejudice. 

These Findings and Recommendations are 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) COURT DAYS (plus three days if served by mail) after service of Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrates Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

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 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05779-AWI -SMS Document 48 Filed 07/19/06 Page 4 of 4