Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00274/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00274-6/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

On August 24, 2005, the court filed an order granting defendant Exum permission to join 1

in defendants’ October 21, 2005 motion to dismiss. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Monte Lee Bridges,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0274 FCD CMK P

vs.

D.L. Runnels, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state

1

a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The case is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)

for findings and recommendations. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 58 Filed 08/30/05 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

2

I. Background

In previous orders, the court has set forth detailed statements of plaintiff’s allegations

against defendants. As the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and the instant motion

concerns only plaintiff’s claims against defendant Bates, the factual discussion is limited to

plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Bates. 

Plaintiff is an inmate at High Desert State Prison in Susanville. He alleges that he

suffers from pain in his back and legs, which he believes is due to being forced to wear ill-fitting

prison shoes. Plaintiff also states that he has a venous insufficiency in his left leg and suffers from

foot problems. Plaintiff alleges that he has significant pain when he walks, often collapses when

walking and needs a cane, crutches or a wheelchair in order to move about. Plaintiff states that on

September 6, 2003, he stopped defendant Bates on his rounds and asked for a cane and for an

appointment to see a doctor. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Bates asked plaintiff where plaintiff’s

crutches were. Plaintiff claims that when he told defendant Bates that he had no crutches, defendant

Bates told plaintiff that he had seen an order for plaintiff to have crutches. Plaintiff states that

defendant Bates told plaintiff that he would check on the order for crutches, and if he did not find

one, make plaintiff an appointment to see a physician. Plaintiff states that he approached defendant

Bates on September 7th and 8th, and each time, defendant Bates walked away. Plaintiff alleges that

defendant Bates failed to provide him with crutches and failed to make a medical appointment for

him. 

II. Discussion

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Bates should be dismissed

because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

 Plaintiff requested, and was granted, an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’

motion. However, plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

By the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), enacted on April 26, 1996,

Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 58 Filed 08/30/05 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

3

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 of prison administrative procedures is mandated “regardless of the

relief offered through [such] procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Even if a

prisoner is seeking only money damages, he must complete the prison administrative appeals

process. See id. at 740. The United States Supreme Court has cautioned that it “will not read futility

or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise.”

Id. at 741 n.6 (2001). The Court has also ruled that the 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).

In California, the state regulations that govern grievance procedures in state jails and

prisons provide that inmates “may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy

which they can demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit.

15, § 3084.1(a). An administrative appeal may progress from an informal review through three

formal levels of review. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. A decision at the third formal level,

which is also referred to as the director’s level, is not appealable and concludes a prisoner’s

departmental administrative remedy. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1(a) and 3084.5(e)(2).

Departmental appeals coordinators may summarily deny a prisoner’s untimely administrative appeal.

See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.3(c)(6) and 3084.6(c). To comply with the PLRA exhaustion

requirement, a state prisoner in California must file an inmate appeal on each claim concerning

prison conditions or events and must proceed to the highest level of administrative review available

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 58 Filed 08/30/05 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

 State prisoners in California may no longer rely on the holding of Rumbles v. Hill, 182 2

F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 1999), that “[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies under section

1997e(a) is not required if a prisoner’s section 1983 claim seeks only monetary damages and if

the correctional facility’s administrative grievance process does not allow for such an award.” 

Booth, 532 U.S. at 740. 

4

to him before he seeks judicial relief, regardless of the relief desired by the prisoner.2

The Ninth Circuit has held that the PLRA exhaustion requirement is not

jurisdictional. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 n.9 & 1119 n.13 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2003)

(citing Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 1999)), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Apr.

1, 2003) (No. 02-1486). The Ninth Circuit and six other circuit courts have ruled that the exhaustion

requirement does not impose a pleading requirement on the prisoner but creates a defense that must

be raised and proved by the defendants. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1117-19 (citing cases of the Second,

Third, Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits); see also Casanova v. Dubois, 304 F.3d 75, 77-78 (1st

Cir. 2002). But see Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (requiring

a prisoner to plead exhaustion and provide a copy, if available, of the administrative decision

disposing of the prisoner’s claims); Knuckles El v. Toombs, 215 F.3d 640, 642 (6th Cir. 2000).

In the instant action, defendants have met their burden of showing that plaintiff has

failed to met the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. Defendants have provided evidence, in the form

of a declaration from J. Pearson, Acting Chief, Inmate Appeals Branch, that plaintiff has not filed

a third level appeal concerning defendant Bates allegedly failing to provide plaintiff with a cane and

never filed an appeal concerning defendant Bates failing to make a necessary medical appointment

for plaintiff. (Doc. 25, Decl. of J. Pearson.) Additionally, a review of the file reveals that none of

the administrative grievances that plaintiff attached to his complaint mention defendant Bates’s

failure to provide plaintiff with crutches or failure to make plaintiff a medical appointment.

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s claim against defendant Bates be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 58 Filed 08/30/05 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

5

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT plaintiff’s complaint against

defendant Bates be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 29, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00274-FCD-CMK Document 58 Filed 08/30/05 Page 5 of 5