Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01060/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01060-0/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 06cv1060-J(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMSEY, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1060-J(NLS)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 28]

Plaintiff Carlos Hendon (“Plaintiff”), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleges that prison medical staff forcibly drugged

him in violation of his civil rights. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies and for failure to file a timely government claim prior to filing suit in federal

court. Plaintiff opposes the motion. After a thorough review, the Court RECOMMENDS that

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that Plaintiff be

GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint.

BACKGROUND

Because this case comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true

all material allegations in the complaint and must also construe the complaint, and all reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890,

895 (9th Cir. 2002). 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01060-CAB Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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

2 06cv1060-J(NLS)

Plaintiff is an inmate committed to the custody of the California Department of Corrections

(“CDC”), and is currently housed at California State Prison–Sacramento (“CSP Sacramento”) in

Represa, California. Plaintiff complains of events which took place while he was housed at R.J.

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”) in San Diego, California. (Complaint ¶ 3.) Plaintiff has

named multiple defendants in his complaint, including Homer Ramsey, a psychiatrist at RJDCF, Margo

Parker, a psychologist at RJDCF, several registered nurses employed at the prison, an unnamed medical

contractor, a medical technical assistant, and various named RJDCF correctional officers. (Id. ¶¶ 4-8.)

According to the complaint, defendants Ramsey and Parker diagnosed Plaintiff as being suicidal,

psychotic, and a potential danger to others. As a result, Plaintiff received “mental health crisis bed

treatment.” Defendants Ramsey and Parker prescribed psychotropic drugs and ordered Plaintiff to take

the prescribed medication against his will. Various other defendants aided in forcibly medicating

Plaintiff by extracting him from his cell and/or administering the medications to Plaintiff. (Complaint ¶

12.) Plaintiff was subjected to repeated treatments, lasting for varying lengths of time. (Id. ¶ 14.) 

Plaintiff suffered side effects from the administered medications, including stiffness, a shuffling gait,

weight gain, high blood pressure and cholesterol, dry mouth, hallucinations, and symptoms akin to

having Parkinson’s disease. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges that California Department of Corrections

(“CDC”) policy requires notice to a prisoner and a hearing in front of a medications review panel prior

to drugging a prisoner forcibly, and that he received neither. (Id. ¶ 16.) Based on these facts, Plaintiff

alleges that he was denied due process of law in violation of his Fourteenth amendment rights, and also

alleges state law claims of negligence against all Defendants for negligence in their official capacities. 

(Id. ¶¶ 19-21.) Plaintiff further alleges that the actions of the collective defendants constitute deliberate

indifference to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth amendment rights. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23.) Plaintiff

seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id.)

Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative

remedies before filing this lawsuit. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s state law claims of

negligence should be dismissed for failure to file a timely government claim pursuant to the California

Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t. Code §§ 900 et seq. (Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities

in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“Memorandum”), 1.) 

Case 3:06-cv-01060-CAB Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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

1 The Court provided Plaintiff with such fair notice by Order filed on September 25, 2006 [Doc. No. 29].

3 06cv1060-J(NLS)

DISCUSSION

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of

the plaintiff’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately

prevail, but solely whether he has stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Jackson v. Carey,

353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003). When the plaintiff is appearing pro se, the court must construe the

pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Thompson, 295 F.3d at 895; KarimPanahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). This rule of liberal construction

is particularly important in civil rights cases. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, however, the court is not permitted to

“supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ.

of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

1. Federal Claims: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

As an initial matter, the Court must address Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies, because exhaustion is a prerequisite to bringing suit under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524

(2002); Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). The PLRA provides in pertinent part,

“[n]o action shall be brought . . . until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under

non-enumerated Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants “have the burden of

raising and proving exhaustion.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The parties

may go outside the pleadings, submitting affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury, but the

plaintiff must be provided with notice of his opportunity to develop a record.1

 Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120

n. 14. Should Defendants submit declarations and/or other documentation demonstrating an absence of

exhaustion, making a prima facie showing, Plaintiff must refute that showing; however, the ultimate

burden remains with Defendants. If the court determines that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, dismissal

without prejudice is the appropriate remedy for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1120.

Case 3:06-cv-01060-CAB Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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

4 06cv1060-J(NLS)

The administrative appeals process for California inmates is set forth in Title 15 of the California

Code of Regulations, which provides, “Any inmate. . . may appeal any departmental decision, action,

condition, or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.1(a). The process consists of four steps. The first step is for the inmate to attempt

to informally resolve his or her problem with the staff member involved. Id. at § 3084.5(a). If

unsuccessful, the inmate can submit a grievance on the CDC inmate appeal form, called a “602” form. 

Id. at § 3084.5(b). If denied at that level, the inmate can appeal to the second level of formal review

conducted by the institution head or his/her designee. Id. at § 3084.5(c). The third and final level of

formal review, called the “Director’s Level,” is conducted by the Director of CDC or his/her designee. 

Cal. Dept. of Corr. Operations Manual § 54100.11; Nichols v. Logan, 355 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1161

(S.D.Cal. 2004).

Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under

the PLRA and therefore his complaint should be dismissed on procedural grounds. Defendants claim

that Plaintiff failed to pursue his grievance to the third and final Director’s level of review. 

(Defendants’ Memorandum, 3.) Defendants base their claim on the results of an Inmate Appeals records

search which revealed no documentary evidence that Plaintiff appealed to the Director’s level of review

in this instance. According to the Declaration of N. Grannis (Chief of Inmate Appeals Branch) in

Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff did not file a third level appeal for his claims

relating to being forcibly drugging by Defendants. (Declaration ¶ 7.) Grannis states that the only

documents produced by the records search concern two prior third level appeals by Plaintiff in unrelated

matters in the year 2001, alleging untimely distribution of medication in one instance and non-receipt of

medication in the other. (Declaration of N. Grannis in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

(“Declaration”) ¶ 8; Defendants’ Memorandum, 6.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint and the attached exhibits indicate that Plaintiff submitted a CDC 602

Inmate Appeal form on January 17, 2005 (Log No. 05-249) complaining that he was involuntarily

medicated with psychotropic drugs. (Complaint, Ex. “A,” CDC 602 Inmate Appeal form signed 1/17/05

by Plaintiff.) Plaintiff’s 1/17/05 CDC 602 form details the events that now form the basis of his civil

rights claims, specifically describing his diagnosis as being psychotic and a potential danger to others,

Case 3:06-cv-01060-CAB Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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

2 Plaintiff’s 1/17/05 CDC 602 form only names the two defendant doctors; it makes no reference to the seventeen

additional named and unnamed defendants identified in Plaintiff’s complaint. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that

identification in the inmate appeal of each defendant by name is not necessary for exhaustion to occur. Butler v. Adams, 387

F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2005). 

5 06cv1060-J(NLS)

and being forced to take anti-psychotic medication without the benefit of a hearing before a medications

review panel. Plaintiff requested in his 1/17/05 CDC 602 form that the two doctors who medicated him

against his will be reprimanded.2

 Plaintiff appealed to the second level of review following the

submission of his 1/17/05 CDC 602 form. On March 25, 2005, Plaintiff received a memorandum of

appeal decision from the Chief Deputy Warden regarding Appeal Log No. 05-249, entitled Second

Level Review. (Complaint, Ex. “A,” 3/25/05 Second Level Review Appeal Memorandum Re: Log No.

05-249.) The memorandum informed Plaintiff that his appeal at the second level of review had been

partially granted, and that his grievance was being referred by the Warden for a “supervisory factfinding investigation.” (Id.) The memorandum further advised Plaintiff that “[i]n the event of staff

misconduct, the institutional supervisory and administrative staff will take the appropriate course of

action. However this would be confidential information, which would not be released...” (Id.) The

memorandum did not counsel that any further review was available.

If an appeal is granted at a lower level in the administrative process, or partially granted to the

extent that the prisoner has received all “available” remedies, the Ninth Circuit has held that the prisoner

does not need to appeal to the third (Director’s) level of administrative review. Brown v. Valoff, 422

F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We conclude, as have ...other circuits, that a prisoner need not press on

to exhaust further levels of review once he has received all ‘available’ remedies at an intermediate level

of review or been reliably informed by an administrator that no [further] remedies are available.”). In

Brown, the court specifically addressed the case where, as here, a second level response memorandum

characterized the prisoner’s “appeal issue” as involving a complaint against prison staff, stated that the

“appeal decision” was “partially granted” such that an investigation would take place, and advised the

prisoner that the results would be confidential. Brown, 422 F.3d at 937. The court noted that “the

reasonable import of this memoranda is that no further relief will be available through the appeals

process, but the confidential staff complaint investigation would go forward and could result in some

administrative action based on [the prisoner’s] complaint.” Id. at 937-38. In reaching the conclusion

Case 3:06-cv-01060-CAB Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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

3 The Court notes that Defendants do not discuss anywhere in their pleadings the existence of the second level

review appeal memorandum, its impact on this case, or the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Brown v. Valoff, in spite of the

fact that the memorandum is attached to Plaintiff’s complaint as part of Exhibit “A,” Defendants were served with Plaintiff’s

complaint, and refer to Exhibit A’s other contents in the body of their Points and Authorities. Defendants instead argue that

Plaintiff’s 4/27/05 CDC 602 form, also attached to the complaint in Exhibit “A,” constitutes his procedurally defective and

untimely attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Defendant’s Memorandum, 6.) Based on the second level review

appeal memorandum (dated 3/25/05) attached to Plaintiff’s complaint and the Ninth Circuit holding in Brown, Defendants’

argument that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies not only fails, but is completely misleading. The

Court reminds counsel of his duty of candor to the Court, see e.g. Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 5-200(B) (counsel shall not

mislead the court regarding the facts or the law) and ABA Model Rules Prof. Conduct 3.3 (lawyer shall not knowingly fail to

disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction know to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position

of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel) and cautions counsel that he may be subject to disciplinary action for

violation of these rules. Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Compania Anonima Venezolana de Vavegacion, 93 F.3d 675, 675-76

(9th Cir. 1996).

6 06cv1060-J(NLS)

that a prisoner has exhausted his administrative remedies if his second level review results in a partial

grant of his appeal and the launching of a confidential investigation into a staff complaint, the court

determined the CDC’s own policies and published manuals mandate such an outcome, concluding that 

“[the Administrative Bulletin of the Department of Corrections] explains that staff misconduct

grievances are to be investigated only through the staff complaint process, thereby negating any

possibility of a parallel investigation through the appeal process. Thus, once [a prisoner’s] grievance

was categorized as a ‘Staff Complaint’- which the entry in the ‘appeal issue’ box indicates that it was -

there was no possibility that it would be investigated again, separately, through the appeal process.” Id.

at 939. The court concluded that no further relief is “available” to a prisoner through the appeals

process once a staff misconduct investigation has been opened, and therefore the prisoner has exhausted

his available administrative remedies. Id. Applying the Brown holding to the facts of this case, Plaintiff

has adequately exhausted his administrative remedies, due to the fact that the his appeal was partially

granted at the second level of review, the appeal decision memorandum he received advised him that a

confidential investigation would commence, and did not counsel that any further review was available. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be DENIED to the extent

that it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims.3

 

2. State Law Tort Claims: Compliance with the California Tort Claims Act

Plaintiff also alleges claims for negligence against all defendants under California state law. 

(Complaint ¶¶ 19-20.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s state law claims should be dismissed for failure

to file a timely government claim pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t. Code §§ 900 et

Case 3:06-cv-01060-CAB Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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 06cv1060-J(NLS)

seq. (Defendants’ Memorandum, 1.) California’s Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a

public entity or its employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government

Claims Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the cause of

action accrues. See Cal. Gov’t. Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2. Presentation of a written

claim, and action on or rejection of the claim, are conditions precedent to suit. Mangold v. California

Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public

employee, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act. Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477;

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). Although Plaintiff has

demonstrated successfully that he utilized the prison grievance process by filing an inmate appeal, that

does not satisfy the Tort Claims Act with respect to his state law negligence claims. Plaintiff alleges in

Paragraph 11 of his complaint that “the time limit has elapsed for the State Board’s response to

Hendon’s administrative tort claim.” This cursory statement, construed as liberally as possible by the

Court, is insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff provides no facts

related to when such a claim was made, and attaches no proof to his complaint that any claim was filed. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED to the

extent that Plaintiff’s state law claims be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

3. Leave to Amend the Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states that leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely

given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend

his or her complaint unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

cured by amendment.’” Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.

1988), quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) and Broughton v. Cutter

Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980). “[B]efore dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint

for failure to state a claim, the district court must give the plaintiff a statement of the complaint’s

deficiencies.” Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 624, citing Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.

1987); Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448-49. In this case, Plaintiff has not been advised previously of the

deficiencies in his complaint and has had no previous opportunities to amend. It is possible that Plaintiff

could add sufficient facts to his complaint and attach the appropriate documentation necessary to allege

Case 3:06-cv-01060-CAB Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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 06cv1060-J(NLS)

compliance with the California Tort Claims Act and to state a valid state law negligence claim. 

Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff be GRANTED leave to amend his complaint in

the event that this deficiency is curable. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be DENIED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of

Plaintiff’s federal claims;

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of

Plaintiff’s state law claims, and those claims be DISMISSED without prejudice for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act; and,

3. Plaintiff be GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint.

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to the United States District Judge assigned to this case.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than November 20, 2006 any party to this action may

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. 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 December 1, 2006. 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: October 20, 2006

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01060-CAB Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 Page 8 of 8