Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00117/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00117-0/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 08cv117 W (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VENSON LANE MYERS

Plaintiff,

v.

L.E.SCRIBNER, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.08cv117 W (WMc)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT

I. Introduction

In this prisoner civil rights case, Venson Lane Myers (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Currently pending

before the Court is Defendants’ unenumerated motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to

properly exhaust available administrative remedies prior to bringing this action. [Doc. No. 11.]

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Thomas J.

Whelan, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.3 of the United States District Court for

the Southern District of California. After reviewing the pleadings, parties’ briefs and exhibits filed in

support thereof, for the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends the Motion to Dismiss of

Defendants be GRANTED as discussed in detail below.

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00117-W-WMC Document 19 Filed 12/03/08 Page 1 of 8
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

The Court will refer to specific pages of Plaintiff’s complaint based on the pagination of documents

found in the Court’s ECF system (Case No. 08-cv-0117; Doc. No. 1).

2 08cv117 W (WMc)

II. Factual Background

A. Underlying Events

Beginning on July 7, 2007, Plaintiff began to consider organizing a Christian-based celebratory

feast as he believes “feeding was and is a work set forth in the gospel for our benefit.” (Complaint at

4.)1

 Plaintiff researched the prison rules and regulations concerning religious events and discovered

inmate religious groups are permitted, at most, two religious events each year where foods with

religious significance are provided by the prison. (Complaint at 4).

On August 23, 2007, Plaintiff had a discussion with the Associate Warden of Calipatria State

Prison, Defendant Builteman concerning the religious feast Plaintiff was planning. (Complaint at 3). 

Defendant Builteman told plaintiff to submit a proposal for the feast to the prison chaplain, Defendant

Richey, for consideration. (Complaint at 3).

On September 24, 2007, a memorandum was submitted, presumably by Plaintiff or others

working in conjunction with Plaintiff, to Defendants Warden Scribner, Associate Warden Builteman and

Chaplain Richey requesting administrative approval of a religious food feast to be held on December 8,

2007 with an anticipated attendance of eight hundred (800) members of the Christian inmate community. (Complaint at 12).

On September 30, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a Request for Interview with Defendant Richey in

order to discuss Defendant Richey’s reasons for refusing to consider the proposal for a Christian food

feast. (Complaint at 8). Sometime thereafter Defendant Richey spoke with Defendant Builteman

concerning the proposed feast. During this discussion Defendant Builteman noted the Federal Prisons

Religious Manual made “no mention of religious feasts for Christian faith” while feasts were allowed

for Jews and Muslims as mandated by the tenets of their respective religions. On October 3, 2007,

Defendant Richey memorialized the contents of this discussion in a note responding to Plaintiff’s

request for interview. (Complaint at 9). The same memorandum also notes that the only foods of

religious significance to the Christian faith are bread and wine and that, in accordance with “the Lord’s

Supper,” an Easter event may be planned with these foods provided. (Complaint at 9).

Case 3:08-cv-00117-W-WMC Document 19 Filed 12/03/08 Page 2 of 8
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 08cv117 W (WMc)

Plaintiff alleges that on October 3, 2007, Defendant Builteman formally denied Plaintiff’s

proposal for a Christian feast on December 8, 2007. (Complaint at 5, 9).

B. Procedural History

On October 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a formal appeal, designated as CAL-A-07-01891, concerning

the denial of the proposed Christian feast. (Complaint at 10). Review of this claim was accepted for

consideration by Defendant Builteman at the First Level of Review on October 10, 2007. (Complaint at

11).

On October 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed an additional formal appeal, to be attached to the previous

appeal (CAL-A-07-01891), concerning cancellation of Christian worship services by Defendant Richey

on October 13, 2007. (Complaint at 13). Plaintiff alleges that, although the justification given for the

cancellation of Christian worship services was out of consideration for the Ramadan religious ceremony,

the actual reason for the cancellation was to retaliate against Plaintiff for his earlier appeal concerning

the denial of his proposed Christian feast. (Complaint at 13). This appeal was marked as received on

October 16, 2007. (Complaint at 13; Dec. of D. Bell in Support of Defendant’s Mot. to Dismiss at 3,

para.. 7(a).)

On October 24, 2007, a formal hearing was held on Plaintiff’s appeal (CAL-A-07-01891). 

(Complaint at 3, 15). At this hearing, Defendant Builteman stated he was not sure what the Christian

religion required by way of a religious ceremony and provided Plaintiff with the chance to convince him

the proposed Christian feast was mandated by the Christian faith. (Complaint at 3). Plaintiff raised no

additional issues but simply relied on what was written in his appeal. (Complaint at 15).

On December 12, 2007, Defendant Builteman issued his formal decision concerning the

Plaintiff’s appeal. (Complaint at 15). Defendant Builteman granted Plaintiff’s appeal in part by

acknowledging the Christian faith places religious significance on “celebration bread and wine (juice)”

in accordance with the Lord’s Supper and, therefore, such a ceremony would be allowed. (Complaint at

15). Defendant Builteman denied the appeal as to the proposed attendance of eight hundred (800)

inmates citing a risk to “the safety and security of inmates and staff.” (Complaint at 15). Plaintiff’s

appeal was also denied as to the claim that Defendant Richey cancelled worship services in retaliation

for the submission of the food feast appeal. Defendant Builteman explained the worship services were

Case 3:08-cv-00117-W-WMC Document 19 Filed 12/03/08 Page 3 of 8
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

On November 3, 3008, the Court, sua sponte, notified Plaintiff Myers of the pending motion to dismiss

and was given an extension of time in which to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss in order to

develop a record. [See Doc. No. 16.] Plaintiff thereafter filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on November

24, 2008. [Doc. No. 18.]

4 08cv117 W (WMc)

cancelled due to a scheduling misunderstanding by the Protestant service sponsors. (Complaint at 15). 

Finally, the December 12, 2007 decision notes, “the issue may be submitted at the Second Level of

Review.” (Complaint at 15). On January 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed the current complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§1983 in the United States District Court, Southern District of California. [Doc. No. 1.] 

III. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

Congress amended 42 U.S. C. § 1997e with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA”) to

provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this

title, 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

exhaustion requirement applies to inmate suits about prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532

(2002).

The Supreme Court has ruled that exhaustion of prison administrative procedures is mandatory. 

Porter, 534 U.S. at 524. The PLRA exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional but rather creates an

affirmative defense that a defendant may raise in a non-enumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the

absence of exhaustion. Id. “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. “I[f] the

district court looks beyond the pleadings to a factual record in deciding the motion to dismiss for failure

to exhaust - a procedure closely analogous to summary judgment - then the court must assure that [the

prisoner] has fair notice of his opportunity to develop a record.”2

 Id. at 1120 n. 14. When the court

determines that the prisoner has not properly exhausted all available administrative remedies, “the

proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120. An action must be dismissed

unless the prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before he filed suit. McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). 

Case 3:08-cv-00117-W-WMC Document 19 Filed 12/03/08 Page 4 of 8
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 08cv117 W (WMc)

///

B. The State of California’s Formal Levels Of Review

The State of California provides prisoners the right to appeal administratively “any departmental

decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare.” 

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). It also provides the right to file appeals alleging misconduct by

correctional officers and officials. Id. at § 3084.1(e). A prisoner must proceed through several levels of

appeal in order to exhaust the administrative remedies available: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal

written appeal on a 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head, and (4) third

level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Barry v.

Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). A decision at the third formal level, also referred to

as the director’s level, is not appealable and concludes the prisoner’s administrative remedies process. 

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15 §§ 3084.1(a) and 3084.5(e)(2). 

C. Analysis

In the present case, Defendants raise Plaintiff’s fail to exhaust in an unenumerated motion to

dismiss. Specifically, Defendants argue Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies

before filing his complaint as mandated by section 1997e(a). [Doc. No. 11-2 at 4:13-14.] In support of

their motion, Defendants have submitted the declarations of: (1) Calipatria State Prison Appeals

Coordinator, D. Bell and (2) N. Grannis, the Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch. The declarations

describe the procedural history of all the administrative grievances Plaintiff has submitted to prison

officials. 

According to D. Bell’s declaration, the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking System follows the

progress of formal appeals through the First, Second and Third Levels of Review. (D. Bell. Decl., 2:6-

22.) A review of the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking Log Level I & II indicates Plaintiff did not

submit Appeal No. CAL-A-07-01891 to the Second Level of Review. (D. Bell Decl., 3:2-8., Exh. A to

Bell Decl.) Similarly, the declaration of N. Grannis, which describes the tracking of Third Level

appeals to the Inmate Appeals Branch, confirms Plaintiff has not submitted Appeal No. CAL-A-07-

01891 to the Third Level of Review. (N. Grannis Decl., 3:20-23., Exh. A to Grannis Decl.) The record

reveals only that, after receiving a partial grant of Appeal No. CAL-A-07-01891 at the First Level of

Case 3:08-cv-00117-W-WMC Document 19 Filed 12/03/08 Page 5 of 8
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

6 08cv117 W (WMc)

Review on December 12, 2007, Plaintiff failed to further exhaust and instead filed suit in federal court

on January 18, 2008, a little more than one month after receiving a First Level decision. [Doc. No. 1.] 

As explained above, defendants have the burden to prove the affirmative defense of failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants

have carried their burden. Plaintiff has not demonstrated proper compliance with the administrative

appeals process, or that the Second and Third Levels of Review were unavailable to him. Instead,

Plaintiff contends that, because his appeal form had the words “Routing - Time Sensitive, Citizen

Complaint” at the top, his appeal qualifies as an exception to the regular appeals process under Cal.

Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.7(a)(2)(B), making appeals through the Third Level of Review unnecessary. 

[Doc. No. 18, Plaintiff’s Opposition at 9:3-7 and 9:20-22.] A careful review of the California Code of

Regulations, however, demonstrates Plaintiff’s argument is misguided. Section 3084.7(a)(2)(B) requires

a “threat to the appellant’s safety or . . . other serious and irreparable harm” before an emergency

processing exception to the regular appeals process may be employed. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, §

3084.7(a)(1). Moreover, the determination of whether an appeal qualifies as an emergency is made by

the appeals coordinator, not by an inmate. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.7(a)(2)(A). There is no

indication on Plaintiff’s appeal No. CAL-A-07-01891 or on the Appeal Decision partially granting

appeal No. CAL-A-07-01891 that Plaintiff’s appeal qualified for emergency processing or that the

Second and Third levels of Review requirements had somehow been waived. (Attachments to Plaintiff’s

Complaint at 10-15.) In fact, the Appeals decision expressly states: “Be advised that this issue may be

submitted at the Second Level of Review.” (Attachment to Plaintiff’s Complaint at 15.)

As McKinney requires dismissal of an action if administrative remedies have not been exhausted

prior to filing suit, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED. 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding an action must be dismissed unless the

prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before filing suit.) 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00117-W-WMC Document 19 Filed 12/03/08 Page 6 of 8
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

7 08cv117 W (WMc)

IV. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of an allegation that Defendant Charles Richey,

“in the presence of sponsor brother ‘Lenny’ . . . stated A/W Builteman copied a religious manual for all

four yards about a year and a half ago and place[d] them in the yard chapel.” (See Plaintiff’s Request

for Judicial Notice filed nunc pro tunc November 26, 2008, at 1:20-26.) 

Judicial Notice is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 201 which governs only judicial notice

of adjudicative facts. “A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is

either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate

and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FRE

201. In other words, “the fact must be one that only an unreasonable person would insist on disputing.” 

United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994). 

The allegation that sponsor brother Lenny witnessed a statement by one of the defendants, is

neither a generally known fact, nor capable of ready determination to sources of unquestionable

accuracy. Moreover, the proposed statement is irrelevant to the issue of exhaustion. Accordingly, it is

recommended that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s request to take judicial notice.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice be DENIED;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED; and

3. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies.

This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to United States District Judge Thomas J.

Whelan pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties by December 26, 2008. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00117-W-WMC Document 19 Filed 12/03/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8 08cv117 W (WMc)

Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed by January 16, 2009. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2008

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Copy to:

 HONORABLE THOMAS J. WHELAN, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 3:08-cv-00117-W-WMC Document 19 Filed 12/03/08 Page 8 of 8