Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06741/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06741-4/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

On November 21, 2005, the court issued an order notifying plaintiff of the requirements 1

for opposing unenumerated Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 15.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORDAN BAXTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6741-REC-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED

(Doc. 20)

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Jordan Baxter (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed March 3, 2005, against defendants Martinez and Torres

(“defendant”) for excessive force. (Doc. 10.) On February 6, 2006, defendants filed a motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff filed

an opposition on March 6, 2006. (Doc. 22.) 1

B. Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with

Case 1:03-cv-06741-AWI -DLB Document 26 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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

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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the

prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards,

nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S.

at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which

they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at 3084.1(a).

Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first formal level, second formal

level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5

(2004). 

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative

defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Based on the general principle that

summary judgment is on the merits while dismissal of an action for failure to exhaust is not on the

merits, the failure to exhaust nonjudicial administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject

to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d

at 1119 (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues

of fact. Id. at 1119-20. If the court concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative

remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

Case 1:03-cv-06741-AWI -DLB Document 26 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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

C. Discussion

Plaintiff filed this action on December 3, 2003. (Doc. 1.) In their motion, defendants argue

that they are entitled to dismissal because exhaustion occurred on July 8, 2004. In support of their

motion, defendants submit a copy plaintiff’s exhausted appeal. (Doc. 20, Grannis Dec., Exhibit 1.)

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that he exhausted all administrative remedies before filing

the second amended complaint on March 3, 2005 and therefore he has complied with § 1997e(a).

Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. Although this action is currently proceeding on

plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on March 3, 2005, the suit itself was initially filed on

December 3, 2003. Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d

at 1199-1201. Because exhaustion occurred after this suit was filed, defendants are entitled to

dismissal of this action, without prejudice. 

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ unenumerated

Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit, filed February 6, 2006, be 

GRANTED, and this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a).

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06741-AWI -DLB Document 26 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 3