Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00602/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00602-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELDON BURROWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. GIFFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-CV-0602-AWI-WMW-PC

ORDER REGARDING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

(Document #27)

Plaintiff Eldon Burrows (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 16, 2007, pursuant

to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), Defendants filed a motion

to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies in compliance

with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). On August 27, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendants’ motion be granted. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and stated that any party could file objections

within thirty days. On September 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the case,

including Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff’s opposition, and Defendants’ reply. Having carefully

reviewed the entire file, the court respectfully declines to adopt the Findings and

Recommendations. 

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 09/27/07 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

27

28

2

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

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). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007);

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Section 1997e(a) does not

impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative defense under which a defendant has

the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921; Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the court concludes that the prisoner has failed to

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

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2007). The process is initiated by

submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(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.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days

of the event being appealed or the denial of an appeal at a lower level, and the process is initiated

by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal

level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). In order to satisfy section 1997e(a), California state prisoners

are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff never completed the administrative grievance system. 

Defendants provide evidence that on May 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed a CDC 602 regarding a broken

step, which Plaintiff alleges contributed to a fall and injury. This CDC 602 was to be answered

at the informal level by the Transportation Office. The Transportation Office repaired the step,

as requested in the CDC 602 appeal but declined to grant compensation because Officer Cere

reported that Plaintiff had indicated he had fallen because his chain was tangled up. The

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 09/27/07 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

27

28

 Defendants also provide evidence that on June 2, 2005, the Appeals Office received a letter from Plaintiff 1

in which he stated he had not received a response to his 602 or to letters he wrote asking about it. Defendants

provide evidence that that Appeals Coordinator Andrew Altnow (“Altnow”) filed a reponse to this letter dated June

2, 2005. In this response, Altnow claims Plaintiff has submitted false information. Altnow states in the letter

Plaintiff claims to have fallen because of the broken step but the 602 Appeal states that Plaintiff only almost fell. 

Altnow also claims no letters regarding the 602 Appeal were ever sent to the Appeals Office

It is unclear what Altnow believes is inconsistent. The letter states: “. . . I fell out of a van while being

transported to bakersfield [sic.] for dialysis.” The 602 states “As I went to get out of the van I stepped on a pull-out

step I went face down in the road and this happened because of a broken step on the van.” In an incident report

dated May 1, 2005, provided by Defendants, Officer H. Cera states that Plaintiff lost his balance and fell on the

ground. From the documents provided by Defendant, it appears Plaintiff has always taken the position that he fell. 

Regardless, as Plaintiff’s letter to the warden is not a step in the administrative process, it will not be

considered in any further detail on this motion.

3

informal denial is dated May 16, 2005. Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff did not

appeal the informal denial until June 30, 2005, which exceeded time constraints. This appeal

also violated regulations because it was a photocopy. 

1

In his opposition, Plaintiff submits evidence that he did not receive the informal denial

until June 18, 2005, when a transportation sergeant gave Plaintiff a copy of the 602, which

included the response at the informal level. Plaintiff then requested review at the formal level

because he was not compensated for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. This formal level

appeal is dated June 30, 2005. Plaintiff provides evidence that his formal level appeal was

screened out on a form dated July 8, 2005. The form states that the office will not accept a

photocopied 602 appeal, the office was never notified by staff that the original appeal was lost,

and Plaintiff did not file the appeal within fifteen days from the date Plaintiff received the

informal level response. Plaintiff argues that his appeal was improperly screened out because he

did not receive a copy of it until June 18, 2005, and at that time, was only given a photocopy. 

In order to prevail on their motion Defendants must demonstrate Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust. Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921; Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936 (9th Cir. 2005). In a

situation such as this where Plaintiff submits evidence that he attempted to properly utilize the

appeals process but never received his 602 appeal back, Defendants must do more than point out

that Plaintiff never completed the prison grievance process. Defendants are not entitled to

dismissal unless they address Plaintiff’s contention and demonstrate he did receive his original

602 back on May 16, 2005. Simply citing to the date on the form is insufficient in light of

Plaintiff’s claims to the contrary. 

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 09/27/07 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

27

28

4

The court is mindful that “[Proper] exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary,” 

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006), and “[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance

with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . ,” Id. at 2386. On the other

hand, the court also acknowledges that the failure to respond or return a properly filed grievance

may result in a finding that exhaustion occurred. See e.g., Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 673-

74 (2d Cir.2004) (holding that an inmate's reasonable interpretation of prison regulations justified

his failure to exhaust when he raised allegations of retaliatory staff misconduct as a defense in

disciplinary proceedings brought against him, rather than affirmatively pursuing the independent

grievance system); Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (when prison

officials fail to respond, the remedy becomes unavailable, and exhaustion occurs). Similarly, a

plaintiff is not required to exhaust all remedies, rather he must exhaust administrative remedies

that “are available.” 42 U.S.C § 1997(e)(a). If Plaintiff’s allegations that prison officials never

returned his 602 is found to be true, then the prison did not make the administrative appeal

process “available to” Plaintiff. See, e.g., Brown v. Croak, 312 F. 3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2002)

(formal grievance procedure not available where prison officials told prisoner to wait for

termination of investigation before filing formal grievance and then never informed prisoner of

termination of investigation); Miller v. Norris, 247 F. 3d 736, 740 (8 Cir. 2001) (holding th

remedy is not “available” where prison officials purportedly prevented prisoner from employing

the prison’s grievance system).

Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt,

315 F. 3d at 1119. By failing to address Plaintiff’s claim that he did not receive the original 602

back on May 16, 2005, Defendants have not met their burden. The court is not finding that

Plaintiff did exhaust. Rather, the court is merely finding that in light of Defendants’ failure to

address Plaintiff’s primary contention, Defendants have not met their burden and are not entitled,

at this time, to dismissal for failure to exhaust.

//

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 09/27/07 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

27

28

5

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust is DENIED without

prejudice; 

2. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge to address Plaintiff’s pending

motion to amend the complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 09/27/07 Page 5 of 5