Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02020/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02020-1/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- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY LYDELL KIRKPATRICK, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUILLERMO GIRON,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv2020-JM (BLM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 6] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States

District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and

Local Civil Rules 72.1(c) and 72.3(f) of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California.

On September 15, 2009, Plaintiff Terry Lydell Kirkpatrick

Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights suit against Correctional Officer Guillermo Giron

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1. Officer Giron (“Defendant”)

filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on December 14, 2009 for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff

opposed the motion on December 21, 2009 [Doc. No. 10] and Defendant

filed a reply on February 1, 2010 [Doc. No. 12].

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 11
 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- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

 This Court finds the issue appropriate for decision on the

papers and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule

7.1.(d)(1) (see Doc. No. 7) and therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

to participate in the hearing via telephone (Doc. No. 10 at 2). The

Court has considered the Complaint, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,

Plaintiff’s Opposition, Defendant’s Reply and all supporting

documents submitted by the parties. For the reasons set forth

below, this Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

(“MTD”) be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s claims arise from actions allegedly committed by

Correctional Officer Guillermo Giron while Plaintiff was an inmate

at R.J. Donovan State Prison. Doc. No. 1 at 1. According to the

complaint, Plaintiff and Defendant were having a verbal disagreement

on May 24, 2009, which resulted in Plaintiff being handcuffed and

escorted out of the building by Defendant. Id. at 3. Plaintiff

alleges that while leaving the building, Defendant “slammed” him

into the concrete and attempted to “plant” his face in the door

frame, and that he only was able to avoid serious injury by turning

his face. Id. Plaintiff claims that once they were outside,

Defendant immediately began choking him and trying to shove his face

into the ground. Id. Plaintiff further claims that he had to roll

away in order to protect himself, and in doing so, forced Defendant

to roll off of him. Id. Defendant then tried to knee Plaintiff in

the chest while Plaintiff was lying on his back. Id. Plaintiff,

who has had past medical problems, including open heart surgery and

a spinal disk replacement, curled up to protect himself. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct violated his

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 11
 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- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

constitutional rights of free speech and freedom from cruel and

unusual punishment as guaranteed by the First and Eighth Amendments

of the United States Constitution. Id. 

Plaintiff seeks $20,000 in damages, $30,000 in punitive

damages, and injunctive relief preventing Defendant from “working

here on the level one yard where he is not supervised properly.”

Id. at 5. Plaintiff also asks that: (1) Defendant be required to

participate in an anger management class; (2) this incident be noted

in Defendant’s personnel file; (3) Defendant “be taken off of the

min yard”; and, (4) Defendant be ordered not to retaliate against

Plaintiff. Id. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint in this Court

and that Plaintiff’s complaint must therefore be dismissed. Doc. 6-

1 at 1. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff filed a first level

administrative appeal on May 29, 2009 but asserts that Plaintiff

subsequently withdrew the appeal. Doc. No. 6-1 at 5. Defendant

explains that when Plaintiff attempted to resubmit the appeal in

September 2009, it was rejected and he was told that if he wanted to

allege the withdrawal was committed under duress, he should “re-file

the appeal to the next level specifically explaining the duress.”

Id. Defendant argues that since Plaintiff did not resubmit his

appeal or file anything at the second or third levels, Plaintiff’s

claim is not exhausted and this complaint must be dismissed. Id. 

Plaintiff responds that he attempted to exhaust his

administrative remedies, but admits that he was unsuccessful. Doc.

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 3 of 11
 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 An "Inmate/Parolee CDC 602" is the form California prisoners must

complete to initiate a claim challenging conditions of confinement or prison

disciplinary action taken against them. The filing of the CDC Form 602 initiates

the prison administrative grievance process. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. §3084.2(a)

("The appellant shall use a CDC Form 602, Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form, to describe

the problem and action requested.").

-4- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

No. 10 at 2. Plaintiff explains that he withdrew his 6021 because

Lt. Moreno promised he would grant Plaintiff everything he

requested. Id. Plaintiff said he was “highly medicated” when he

withdrew his 602 and that Lt. Moreno subsequently failed to satisfy

his promises. Id. Plaintiff said he then attempted to resubmit his

602 but Lt. Alinby said he would discuss Plaintiff’s complaint with

the Warden. Id. Plaintiff asserted that he failed to take further

action because Lt. Alinby never responded to him. Id. As a result,

Plaintiff argues that he “attempted to exhaust the use of my

administrative remedies to no avail.” Id. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1995 provides

that:

No 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). “Congress enacted § 1997e(a) to reduce the

quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits.” Porter v.

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). The United States Supreme Court

has confirmed that exhaustion is a mandatory prerequisite to filing

suit in federal court. Id. However, the prisoner is not required

to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in his or her complaint

because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA.

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). 

The proper vehicle for challenging a complaint based on

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 4 of 11
 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

2Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,

(2006), Ninth Circuit law directed the district court to dismiss a complaint

without prejudice to allow the prisoner a chance to exhaust his administrative

remedies. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 ("If the district court concludes that the

prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal

of the claim without prejudice."); see also McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d at 1198,

1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002). However, Woodford forecloses any untimely exhaustion.

The exhaustion requirement may not be satisfied "by filing an untimely or

otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal." Woodford,

548 U.S. at 82. Proper exhaustion requires compliance with an agency's deadlines

and other critical procedural rules. Id. at 90; see e.g., Janoe v. Garcia, 2007

WL 1110914, at *8-9 (S.D.Cal. March 29, 2007) (dismissing complaint with

prejudice where a prisoner did not pursue the three-step formal review process,

and the time to do so had expired); Regan v. Frank, 2007 WL 106537, at *4-5

(D.Haw. Jan.9, 2007) (dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice for failure

to timely exhaust administrative remedies). 

-5- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an unenumerated motion

under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Unlike under Rule

12(b)(6), “[i]n deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to

exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the

pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. The

plaintiff, however, must be provided with an opportunity to develop

a record to refute the defendant’s prima facie showing of

non-exhaustion. Id. at 1120 n.14. If the district court concludes

that the prisoner has failed to exhaust his or her administrative

remedies, and cannot do so, the claim may be dismissed with

prejudice2. See Rowe v. Montoya, 2010 WL 703033, *5 (E.D.Cal.

Feb. 25, 2010). 

Failure to exhaust may not be waived. See Woodford, 548 U.S.

at 85 (“[e]xhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the

district court”). The United States Supreme Court has stated that

“[t]here is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA

and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones, 549

U.S. at 211. A prisoner also cannot satisfy the PRLA’s exhaustion

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 5 of 11
 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- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

requirement by “filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally

defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Woodford, 548 U.S.

at 83-84. Nor can a prisoner who did not make any attempt to

utilize the prison grievance system sidestep the exhaustion

requirement by arguing that it now would be futile to attempt to

exhaust within the prison system. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

741 n.6 (2001) (“we stress the point . . . that we will not read

futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements

where Congress has provided otherwise”); see also Woodford, 548 U.S.

at 100 (“if the party never pursues all available avenues of

administrative review, the person will never be able to sue in

federal court”).

As Defendant correctly explains, the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") utilizes a four-step

grievance process for prisoners seeking review of an administrative

decision or perceived mistreatment. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d

1047, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2006); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15,

§§ 3084.1-3084.6. An inmate wishing to exhaust his or her remedies

must complete four steps: (1) fill out a complaint form (generally

referred to as a "602" form), present it to the prison official

involved, and attempt informal resolution; (2) if not resolved, file

for and receive a first formal level decision; (3) if relief is not

granted at the first formal level, file for and receive a second

formal level decision; and, (4) if relief is not granted at the

second level, file for and receive a third level decision from the

Director of Corrections. 15 C.C.R. § 3084.5. An inmate must submit

his appeal “within 15 working days of the event or decision being

appealed, or of receiving an unacceptable lower level appeal

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 6 of 11
 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- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

decision.” 15 C.C.R. § 3084.6(c). "Only after the administrative

process ends and leaves his grievances unredressed" may the inmate

initiate litigation in federal court. Vaden, 449 F.3d at 1051. A

review of the submitted records and documents establishes that

Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

The original incident occurred on May 24, 2009 and Plaintiff

filed an administrative appeal (log number RJD-1-09-00706) on May

29, 2009. See Docs. No. 1 at 4 and 6-2 at Exhibit A. In his

appeal, Plaintiff requested that he receive proper medical

attention, that he be compensated for the physical and mental pain

caused by Defendant, and that Defendant be investigated for the

unnecessary and excessive use of force. See Doc. No. 6-2 at Exhibit

A. On June 10, 2009, Plaintiff withdrew his appeal, stating:

I withdraw this CDC 602-09-706. I do not request any

witnesses and I am satisfied with the response by Lt.

Moreno, A., and, Sgt. Omohondro, W., I talked to them

and request and want to withdraw this 602 and any

related issues. I do not want to pursue this matter

any further.

Id.

When Plaintiff chose to withdraw his appeal in June 2009, he

stopped short of exhausting his administrative remedies. See Cruz

v. Tilton, 2009 WL 3126518, *5 (E.D.Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (citations

omitted) (stating that a “withdrawn inmate grievance cannot be used

to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies”). While

Plaintiff claims that he only withdrew his complaint because he was

promised by Lieutenant A. Moreno and Sargent W. Omohondro that all

of his requests would be granted if he did so, Plaintiff has not

offered any evidence to support that claim. See Cruz, 2009 WL

3126518 at *5.

On August 25, 2009, Plaintiff attempted to resubmit the May

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 7 of 11
 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- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

29, 2009 appeal. See Doc. No. 6-2 at Exhibit B. Plaintiff stated

that the June withdrawal occurred while he was heavily medicated and

under duress. Id. Plaintiff also claimed that while Lt. Moreno

promised that all of Plaintiff’s requests would be granted if he

withdrew his complaint, the requests were not all granted. Doc. No.

1 at 4. Plaintiff again sought compensation for his physical and

mental suffering and asked that Defendant be investigated and

required to attend anger management and sensitivity classes. Doc.

No. 6-2 at Exhibit B. 

Plaintiff received a letter from the Inmate/Parolee Appeals

Coordinator dated September 1, 2009, stating that his request to

resubmit the appeal was untimely, and that in order to pursue the

matter further, he needed to submit a written explanation and

supporting documentation explaining the untimeliness. See Doc. No.

6-2 at Exhibit C. In response, on September 3, 2009, Plaintiff

again attempted to resubmit his May 24, 2009 appeal, stating that

the appeal was filed in a timely manner and was previously withdrawn

under duress. See Docs. No. 10 at 1. and 6-2 at Exhibit D. 

On September 17, 2009, the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Coordinator

informed Plaintiff that the September 3, 2009 submission was

rejected because it duplicated the appeal he withdrew on June 10,

2009. Doc. No. 6-2 at Exhibit E. The letter stated “If you wanted

to claim duress, you should have re-filed that appeal to the next

level with an explanation as to what the duress was.” Id.

Plaintiff took no further action in this matter under the CDCR

grievance process (Docs. No. 6-2 and 6-3) and on September 15, 2009,

he filed a complaint in this court. 

As previously stated, an inmate must submit his appeal

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 8 of 11
 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

-9- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

“within 15 working days of the event or decision being appealed, or

of receiving an unacceptable lower level appeal decision.” 15

C.C.R. § 3084.6(c). Here, Plaintiff waited until August 25, 2009 to

resubmit his appeal. This submission occurred approximately three

months after the original appeal was submitted, and more than two

months after Plaintiff withdrew the appeal. As such, his

resubmission occurred well after the fifteen-day time frame expired

and therefore was untimely. In addition, Plaintiff did not pursue

his apparent opportunity to cure the untimeliness by explaining the

alleged duress. On two occasions, the Inmate/Parolee Appeals

Coordinator advised Plaintiff that his appeal was untimely and in

the first letter explained that if he wanted to allege duress, he

needed to file a new appeal explaining in writing the alleged duress

and how the alleged duress caused the untimely submission. Doc. No.

6-2 at Exhibits C and E. Plaintiff did not provide the requested

written explanation, nor the supporting documentation. Plaintiff

also failed to take his complaint to the final level of review.

Docs. No. 6-2 and 6-3. Because Plaintiff failed to submit his

appeal in a timely manner, he did not satisfy the PRLA’s exhaustion

requirement. See Woodford, 548 U.S at 83-83 (finding that a

prisoner cannot satisfy the PRLA’s exhaustion requirement by “filing

an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative

grievance or appeal”); see also Cruz v. Cate, 2010 WL 711197, *1

(9th Cir. 2010) (finding that the district court properly dismissed

the action where plaintiff failed to submit an inmate grievance

within the 15-working-day deadline); and Stewart v. Calderon, 2009

WL 3416127, *1 (9th Cir. 2009) (same).

It appears that Plaintiff believes he can bypass the

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 9 of 11
 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

315 C.C.R. § 3391(b) states “an allegation by a non-inmate of misconduct

by a departmental peace officer as defined in section 3291(b), is a citizen's

complaint pursuant to Penal Code section 832.5. Citizen's complaints alleging

misconduct of a departmental peace officer shall be filed within twelve months

of the alleged misconduct.”

-10- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

timeliness issue by designating the May 29, 2009 appeal a "Citizen's

Complaint" as he repeatedly makes or emphasizes that designation.

For example, when Plaintiff resubmitted his appeal in September

2009, he noted that the 602 he filed was a "citizen's complaint."

Doc. No. 6-2, Exhibit D. He also wrote across the top of the new

appeal that "it was a citizen's complaint;" this phrase was not

present when it was first filed. Id; see also Doc. No. 6-2, Exhibit

A. Finally, in his complaint before this Court, Plaintiff states

that he submitted and withdrew a "citizen's complaint." Doc. No. 1

at 4. 

Plaintiff's assertion that his appeal is a citizen's

complaint and, therefore, entitled to more than fifteen days for

submission is misplaced. Citizen's complaints are discussed in 15

C.C.R. § 3391(b). While 15 C.C.R. § 3391(b)3 does allow twelve

months for an allegation of misconduct to be made, the section is

expressly limited to non-inmates and, therefore, does not apply to

Plaintiff or his appeal. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of

the incident and, therefore, was required to submit his grievance

within fifteen days. 15 C.C.R. § 3084.5 and 3084.6(c)

In sum, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies. He voluntarily withdrew the one appeal that he filed

regarding the incident with Officer Giron and placed no conditions

or promises on that withdrawal. Doc. No. 6-2 at Exhibit A. He then

waited more than fifteen days to resubmit the appeal and he failed

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 10 of 11
 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

-11- 09cv2020-JM (BLM) 

to provide any explanation or documentation explaining the

untimeliness. Docs. No. 6-2 and 6-3. Finally, while Plaintiff

alleged that he withdrew his complaint under duress, he never refiled his appeal with an explanation and documentation of the

duress. Doc. No. 6-2 at Exhibit E. 

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

the District Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this

Report and Recommendation and (2) granting Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this

Report must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no

later than May 26, 2010. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than June

16, 2010. 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. See Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 

DATED: May 5, 2010

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02020-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 05/05/10 Page 11 of 11