Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SCHULTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00988-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(ECF No. 30)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

(14) DAYS

Plaintiff Kenneth Schultz, a state prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State

Prison (CSP), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds against Defendant Kim M.D. on a claim of 

medical indifference.

Defendant has moved to dismiss as unexhausted all medical indifference claims

“that do not relate to the alleged events of July 22, 2009” pursuant to the unenumerated 

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (ECF No. 30 at 1:22-23). Plaintiff filed 

opposition (ECF No. 31). Defendant filed a reply to the opposition (ECF No. 34). The 

motion is now submitted for ruling. Local Rule 230(l). 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 38 Filed 10/30/13 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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) stipulates, “No 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). Therefore, prisoners are 

required to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 

549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). The Supreme Court held that “the PLRA's exhaustion 

requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general 

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some 

other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Further, the exhaustion of 

remedies is required, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner, as long as the 

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the prisoner's complaint. Booth v. 

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has an 

administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints; the process is initiated by 

submitting a CDCR Form 602. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, 3084.2(a). During the 

time relevant to this case, four levels of appeal existed: an informal level, a first formal 

level, a second formal level, and a third formal level, also known as the “Director's Level”; 

each successive appeal had to be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being 

appealed. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c).

1

To properly exhaust administrative remedies, a 

prisoner must comply with the deadlines and other applicable procedural rules. Woodford v. 

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006).

The exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a) is not a pleading requirement, but rather 

an affirmative defense. Defendants have the burden of proving plaintiff failed to exhaust the 

available administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the District Court. Jones, 549 

 

1

Emergency changes to the regulations became effective on January 28, 2011. The changes occurred after 

the events at issue here and are therefore irrelevant to the resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 38 Filed 10/30/13 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

U.S. at 216 (2007). A motion raising a prisoner's failure to exhaust the administrative 

remedies is properly asserted by way of an unenumerated motion under Fed. R. Civ. P 

12(b). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003); Ritza v. Int'l Longshoremen's 

& Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining whether a 

case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, “the court may 

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact” in a procedure that is 

“closely analogous to summary judgment.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119–20. When the court 

concludes the prisoner has not exhausted all of his available administrative remedies, “the 

proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice.” Id.

II. ARGUMENTS

A. Defendant’s Position

According to Defendant, Plaintiff alleges medical indifference occurring on July 22, 

2009, September 20, 2009, and November 23, 2009 (ECF No. 9 at 4-5), and that Plaintiff 

exhausted only the July 22nd claim (via Health Care Appeal No. COR-09-09-132391 filed 

on July 29, 2009). (ECF No. 30-1, 30-2.) Thus, Defendant, seeks dismissal of the arguably 

unexhausted claims relating to the September and November events.

B. Plaintiff’s Position

Plaintiff argues his Health Care Appeal No. COR-09-09-132391 was denied at the 

third (Director’s) level on December 17, 2010, exhausting PLRA remedies on all medical 

indifference claims alleged in this action. (ECF No. 31.)

III. ANALYSIS

A. Defendant’s Motion Should be Denied

On review of the record, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s medical indifference 

appeal related to pain that was ongoing and accumulating throughout the three dates at 

issue and that it was denied at the third level, thereby exhausting administrative remedies 

on all claims before the Court in this action. 

Specifically, Plaintiff’s pleading asserts Defendant was indifferent to Plaintiff’s

progressively worsening pain when Plaintiff seen on July 22, 2009, September 20, 2009, 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 38 Filed 10/30/13 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

and November 23, 2009. (ECF No. 9 at 4-5.) To have properly exhausted the medical 

indifference claim, Plaintiff must have submitted an inmate appeal regarding this claim and 

obtained a third level decision prior to June 15, 2011, the date he filed this action. 

Woodford, 548 U.S. at 85–86 (2006); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th 

Cir. 2002).

It is without dispute that on July 29, 2009 Plaintiff appealed Defendant’s indifferent 

response to his complaint of pain and received a denial of that appeal at the third 

(Director’s) level on December 17, 2010. That appeal filed on July 29, 2009 put prison 

officials on notice of Defendant’s alleged indifference to Plaintiff’s pain complaint and 

provided them an opportunity for administrative resolution. This satisfied the legislative 

purpose behind PLRA exhaustion, namely to alert the prison to a problem and give it an 

opportunity to resolve it; the appeal need not lay the groundwork for litigation. Griffin v. 

Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120, (9th Cir. 2009); see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88. In 

California, inmates are required only to describe the problem and the action requested. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.2(a). This Plaintiff accomplished through the a third (Director’s)

level denial. 

Plaintiff needed to do no more. The July 29, 2009 Health Care Appeal remained 

pending when Defendant continued what is claimed to have been his indifference to 

ongoing pain September 20, 2009 and November 23, 2009. 

An appeal need not lay out the facts, articulate legal theories, or demand particular 

relief; all the appeal need do is object intelligibly to some asserted shortcoming. Strong v. 

David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002). See Lewis v. Washington, 197 F.R.D. 611, 614 

(N.D. Ill. 2000) (inmates not required to administratively exhaust each or every grievance 

concerning specific conditions of which he complains).

For the reasons stated above, Defendant is not entitled to dismissal of the medical 

indifference claim relating to events subsequent to July 22, 2009.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim on which Plaintiff is currently 

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 38 Filed 10/30/13 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

proceeding was properly exhausted. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the undersigned RECOMMENDS that 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the medical indifference claim as to events subsequent to

July 22, 2009 (ECF No. 30) should be DENIED.

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)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) 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 fourteen 

(14) 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, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 38 Filed 10/30/13 Page 5 of 5