Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST BE GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART

(Doc. 40.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Eric Charles RodneyK’napp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Original Complaint commencing

this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants Warden Derral G. Adams,

Sergeant (“Sgt.”) C. Pugliese, Lieutenant (“Lt.”) E. Smith, K. Motty, R. Guerrero, E. Meaders, Sgt.

B. Johnson, Captain D. Cuevas, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. Sherman, D. Selvy

(Classification Services Representative), and Does 1-5 (Mailroom Workers) for retaliating against

Plaintiff, and against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals

Coordinator Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5

(Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First Amendment.1

All other claims and defendants were dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, based on

1

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)

1

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 14
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

(Doc. 16.) Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown,

California. On February 19, 2010, defendants Adams, Selvy, Motty, Cuevas, Sherman, Hall,

Pugliese and Smith (“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. (Doc. 40.) On March 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the motion. (Doc. 41.) 2 3

On April 15, 2010, Defendants filed a Reply. (Doc. 48.) Defendants’ motion to dismiss is now

before the Court.

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS

Plaintiff makes allegations and brings claims as follows in the Second Amended Complaint.4

At the time of the events at issue, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility (“SATF”), and Defendants were all employees of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff requests money damages, declaratory relief,

and injunctive relief.

A. RETALIATION – Defendants Adams, Pugliese, Smith, Motty, Guerrero,

Meaders, Johnson, Cuevas, Tucker, Sherman, Selvy, and Does 1-5

Plaintiff claims that defendants Adams, Pugliese, Smith, Motty, Guerrero, Meaders, 

Johnson, Cuevas, Tucker, Sherman, Selvy, and Does 1-5 retaliated against him, in violation of the

First Amendment, because Plaintiff complained of the conditions and abuses in prison and filed

prisoner grievances and lawsuits. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Pugliese, Smith, Motty, Guerrero, Meaders, Johnson, and

Does 1-5 denied him indigent correspondence supplies, delayed his mail, obstructed his outgoing

mail, and denied him all but the May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News. Plaintiff 

alleges that defendant Johnson issued a false disciplinary write-up against Plaintiff for having a

On March 22, 2010, defendants Johnson and Cooper joined the present motion to dismiss. (Doc. 43.)

2

Defendants Guerrero, Meaders, Tucker, and Garcia have not been served with process, have not joined the present

motion to dismiss, and have not otherwise made any appearance in this action. (See Court Docket and Doc. 35.)

The Doe defendants cannot be served until Plaintiff has identified them as actual individuals and amended the

complaint to substitute their names.

Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion on

3

September 24, 2009. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 32.)

This summary includes Plaintiff’s claims in the Second Amended Complaint found cognizable by the Court

4

on August 17, 2009, and Plaintiff’s related allegations, upon which this case now proceeds. (Docs. 23, 29.)

2

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 14
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

clothesline inside his cell. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Adams and Cuevas instructed CDCR

personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixty-minute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come

over 250 miles to see Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Tucker issued an orderfalsely alleging

that Plaintiff presented an immediate threat to safety and security at SATF, such that Plaintiff was

handcuffed, subjected to an unclothed body search, placed in a small cage, and subsequently placed

in an Ad-Seg cell where the exterior window had been painted over, and all personal property, liberty,

and privileges were taken away. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Smith retained Plaintiff in AdSeg, and that defendants Sherman, Smith, and Selvy transferred Plaintiff to another prison.

B. MAIL INTERFERENCE – Defendants Motty, Pugliese, Smith, Guerrero, 

Cooper, Garcia, Hall, and Does 1-5

Plaintiff claims that defendants Motty, Pugliese, Smith, Guerrero, Cooper, Garcia, Hall, and

Does 1-5 interfered with his constitutional right to send mail, when they delayed his outgoing mail

due to issues about Plaintiff’s compliance with indigent mailing requirements /regulations. 

III. STATUTORY EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), “[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 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). “Proper exhaustion[,

which] demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .”

is required, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006), and may not be satisfied “by filing an

untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Id. at 83-84.

 The PLRA requires a prisoner to exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available”

before suing over prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Booth court held that the PLRA

requires administrative exhaustion even where the grievance process does not permit award of

money damages and the prisoner seeks only money damages, as long as the grievance tribunal has

3

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 3 of 14
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

authority to take some responsive action. Booth, 532 U.S. at 732. “The meaning of the phrase

‘administrative remedies ... available’ is the crux of the case.” Id. at 731. In discussing the

meaning of the term “remedy,” the court noted that “depending on where one looks, ‘remedy’ can

mean either specific relief obtainable at the end of a process of seeking redress, or the process

itself, the procedural avenue leading to some relief.” Id. at 738. (emphasis added.) Thus, the

court determined that the language of the statute, which requires that the “available” “remed[y]”

must be “exhausted” before a complaint under § 1983 may be entertained, refers to “exhaustion”

of the process available. Id. at 738-739. (emphasis added.) It follows, then, that if an inmate

exhausts the process that is made available to him, he has satisfied the requirement of the statute. 

“Availability” of relief for purposes of the exhaustion requirement under the PLRA turns on how

the prison views and treats a prisoner’s complaint based on its own procedures. Brown v. Valoff,

422 F.3d 926, 942 (9th Cir. 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. 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215-16 (2007); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 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 (citing Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s &

Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curium)). 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. 

IV. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the CDCR has an administrative grievance

system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated by

submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Appeals must be submitted within fifteen

working days of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal

4

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 4 of 14
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

to the informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). 

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. In order to

satisfy § 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their

claims prior to filing suit. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 85; McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d. 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002).

A. Defendants’ Motion

Defendants argue that because Plaintiff has only exhausted two administrative appeals

concerning the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, all of the claims not addressed in

the two appeals should be dismissed from this action. Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff

filed only two appeals between March 2005 and November 11, 2006, which were accepted by the

Inmate Appeals Branch, originated from Plaintiff’s incarceration at SATF, and concerned the

allegations in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Declaration of D. Foston, Doc. 40-1

(“Foston Decl.”)). 

One appeal, log number SATF-05-02920, was denied at the Director’s Level of review on

March 14, 2006. (Foston Decl. ¶5.) In this appeal, Plaintiff complained that his incoming,

outgoing, confidential, legal, and regular mail were being illegally censored, opened, delayed, or

otherwise obstructed. Id. Plaintiff also alleged that his written communications to the Warden

were ignored. Id.

The other appeal, log number SATF-05-02080, was denied at the Director’s Level of

review on December 20, 2005. (Foston Decl. ¶6.) In this appeal, Plaintiff complained that he had

not received his requested indigent envelopes and writing paper for the months of April and May

2005, which violated his First Amendment right to correspond. Id. Plaintiff also alleged that a

SATF staff member provided a false response to his appeal at the First Level of review. Id.

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s two exhausted appeals pertained only to Plaintiff’s

allegations about interference with his outgoing mail and his ability to receive indigent writing

materials, and neither of these appeals, or any other appeal exhausted by Plaintiff, dealt with

///

5

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 5 of 14
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

Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation. (Foston Decl. ¶7.) Therefore, Defendants request dismissal of all

of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims for failure to exhaust remedies.

B. Plaintiff’s Position

The Court looks to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, First Amended Complaint, Second

Amended Complaint, and verified Opposition. 

5

1. Plaintiff’s Opposition

In his verified Opposition filed March 17, 2010, Plaintiff argues that his claims should not

be dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies, because he exhausted all of the remedies “available”

to him. (Opp’n., Doc. 41.) Plaintiff claims that he submitted at least eleven different

administrative grievances and appeals regarding the allegations in his Second Amended

Complaint, and most of them were obstructed or otherwise mishandled by CDCR personnel. (Id.

at 18:8-14.) Plaintiff asserts that he submitted grievances on Form 602 on April 10, 2005, April 6

21, 2005, May 1, 2005, May 24, 2005, June 28, 2005, July 5, 2005, July 19, 2005, August 4, 2005,

September 5, 2005, October 4, 2005, and October 11, 2005, all which were obstructed or

mishandled by prison personnel. (Id. at 25-30 and Exhs. A-F, H-K.) Plaintiff also asserts that he

submitted one appeal on July 12, 2005, which was not obstructed. (Id. at 30 ¶10 and Exh. G.) 

Plaintiff argues that he should be excused, pursuant to federal case law, from completing the

appeals process due to four “Special Circumstances” acknowledged by federal courts which are

present in this case: (1) when prison officials do not respond to a prisoner’s grievance within

established time limits; (2) when prison officials reject a prisoner’s grievance with instructions

that are at odds with the wording of the established grievance regulations; (3) when affirmative

conduct by prison officials otherwise directly interferes with a prisoner’s ability to properly and

fully exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with established grievance procedures and

In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look beyond

5

the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. Plaintiff signed the Original

Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint under penalty of perjury. (Docs. 1, 9, 16.)

Plaintiff also signed his Opposition under penalty of perjury. (Doc. 41.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s opposition to the

motion to dismiss is based in part on the evidence in his verified Complaints and Opposition, and the Exhibits

supporting these documents.

When a party’s pagination on a document differs from that of the Court’s electronic filing system, the

6

Court uses the pagination of the Court’s electronic filing system.

6

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 6 of 14
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

governing administrative regulations; and (4) when a prisoner’s grievance is granted in relevant

part at a preliminary level of review and/or is otherwise responded to or acted upon by prison

officials in some substantial way that makes further review unnecessary or meaningless. (Id. at

22-25.)

2. Original Complaint

In the Original Complaint, Plaintiff states that he filed grievances and completed grievance

procedures regarding the claims in the Complaint. (Cmp., Doc. 1 at 4 ¶B.) Plaintiff alleges that

when he tried to petition for redress of violations, his access to the grievance process was

obstructed. (Id. at 8-11 ¶¶1b, 1d, 1f, 1h, 1j, 1l, 1o, 2b, 2h, 2j.) 

3. First Amended Complaint

In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that he filed grievances and completed

grievance procedures regarding the claims in the Complaint. (First Amd. Cmp., Doc. 9 at 4 ¶B.)

Plaintiff alleges that prison staff infringed on his ability to access the CDCR grievance system by

refusing to accept, process, and review his grievances. (Id. at 6 ¶7a(i), 8-10 ¶¶1b, 1d, 1f, 1h, 1j,

1l, 1o, 2b, 2h, 2j.)

4. Second Amended Complaint

In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that prior to initiating this action, he

gave prison staff fair notice of and sufficient opportunity to address and resolve all claims in the

Complaint, by submitting numerous administrative grievances concerning the alleged events and

circumstances in accordance with the appeals process. (Second Amd. Cmp., Doc. 16 at 7 ¶II.) 

Plaintiff claims he exhausted all available remedies, and that prison staff obstructed his access to

the appeals process, making such remedies unavailable. (Id. ) Plaintiff claims that he submitted

numerous grievances between May and October 2005, which were obstructed by defendants. (Id.

at 18 ¶¶(L), (m), (n), (p), (w), (x), 34 ¶56, 35 ¶60, 41 ¶90, 59-60 ¶¶141-44, 148, 61 ¶¶151-54, 62

¶¶158-59, 63 ¶¶162-65, 64 ¶¶168-69, 65 ¶¶172-77, 66 ¶¶180-81, 67, ¶¶184-86, 68-69 ¶¶189-92,

69 ¶¶196-97, 200-201.)

///

///

7

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 7 of 14
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

C. Defendants’ Reply

In their Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s evidence

shows that he was not prevented from exhausting his claims of retaliation, and that he only

exhausted appeals pertaining to his outgoing mail and his ability to receive indigent writing

materials. Defendants argue that the “Special Circumstances” claimed by Plaintiff do not excuse

his failure to exhaust. Defendants maintain that the appeals Plaintiff submitted as Exhibits A, B,

E, F, I, and J are unrelated to any of his claims of retaliation. (Opp’n, Doc. 41 at Exhs. A, B, E, F,

I, J.) With regard to Plaintiff’s Exhibits C and F, Defendants have already admitted that those two

appeals were exhausted, but they only concern Plaintiff’s claims regarding his outgoing mail and

his ability to receive indigent writing materials for a period of two months. (Id. at Exhs. C, D.) 

V. DISCUSSION

Defendants have shown that Plaintiff only submitted two appeals to all four levels of the

appeals process, and neither of those appeals concerned Plaintiff’s retaliation claims. (Declaration

of D. Foston, Doc. 40-1 (“Foston Decl.”)). Based on this evidence, Defendants argue that all of

Plaintiff’s retaliation claims should be dismissed by the Court based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

remedies. The Court rejects this argument, because a Director’s Level response is not necessary

[under the PLRA] to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, as long as the “available” remedies have

been completed. Brown, 422 F.3d at 935-36 (“[A] prisoner need not press on to exhaust furtherlevels

of review once he has either received all ‘available’ remedies at an intermediate level or has been

reliably informed by an administrator that no remedies are available.”). The question here is whether

Plaintiff exhausted the remedies “available” to him with regard to all of Plaintiff’ s retaliation claims.

The Court has examined Plaintiff’s evidence of eleven appeals he submitted using the prison

appeals process between April and October 2005. (Exhs. A-K to Pltf’s Opp’n, Doc. 41.) Two of the

eleven appeals, as discussed next, mentioned retaliation by defendants. (Exhs. A, K.) The other nine

appeals concerned issues other than retaliation. 

7

The April 21, 2005 appeal concerned the confiscation of thirty pages as contraband from Plaintiff’s

7

incoming mail. (Exh. B.) The May 1, 2005 appeal concerned obstruction of outgoing mail and failure to provide

Plaintiff with indigent writing supplies and postage. (Exh. C.) The May 24, 2005 appeal concerned Plaintiff’s

discipline for possession of a clothesline. (Exh. D.) The June 28, 2005 appeal concerned lack of access to the law

library and insufficiency of resources at the law library. (Exh. E.) The July 5, 2005 appeal concerned obstruction of

8

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 8 of 14
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

A. April 10, 2005 Appeal – SATF-E-05-01531

Appeal log number SATF-E-05-01531 was submitted by Plaintiff to the Informal Level on

April 10, 2005. (Exh. A.) The appeal chiefly concerned several instances of interference with

Plaintiff’s incoming and outgoing, regular and confidential/legal mail. Id. However, Plaintiff also

mentioned “fear of the harassment and retaliation I’ve already been threatened with by staff at this

prison (i.e., retaliatory cell searches in violation of CCR 15 § 3287(a)(2) and/or other misconduct if

I exercise my rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment),” and alleged that the housingunit staff “harassed me ... because I asserted my right [to have envelopes to the warden processed as

confidential mail] and their duty in regard thereto.” Id. The appeal was denied at the First and

Second Levels of review and rejected as untimely at the Director’s Level. Id. 

Plaintiff claims the Director’s Level review was unavailable to him because the mail staff

refused to affix postage to the envelopewhen Plaintiff attempted to mail the grievance to the Director. 

Plaintiff claims he was entitled to free postage under prison regulations, but the prison refused to

comply. Plaintiff notified the mail staff and other prison officials several times that he was entitled

to free postage, and that their refusal to provide the postage was obstructing his access to the

Director’s Level. (Exh. A at 13-57.) Plaintiff’s requests for free postage were denied, and by the time

Plaintiff’s appeal was received at the Director’s Level, the fifteen-day deadline had expired and the

appeal was rejected as untimely. (Id. at 54-57.) 

Plaintiff’s evidence does not support the assertion that prison staff prevented him from

mailing his appeal to the Director’s Level on time. Evidence shows that Plaintiff was well informed 8

of the mail procedures at SATF before the 15-day deadline expired, and that he had more than one

way to obtain postage. Plaintiff was informed in the First Level response on May 5, 2005, that

outgoing mail and failure to provide Plaintiff with indigent writing materials and postage. (Exh. F.) The July 12,

2005 appeal concerned visitation privileges during a lockdown. (Exh. G.) The July 19, 2005 appeal concerned

obstruction of incoming and outgoing mail. (Exh. H.) The September 5, 2005 appeal concerned the prison’s refusal

to give Plaintiff issues of Prison Legal News from his incoming mail. (Exh. I.) And the October 4, 2005 appeal

concerned the prison’s refusal to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his CDC-119 form showing records of his

correspondence. (Exh. J.)

Plaintiff had a 15-day deadline from June 17, 2005, the date he received his response from the Second

8

Level, in which to submit an appeal to the Director’s Level. (Exh. A at 10.)

9

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 9 of 14
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

pursuant to mail procedures at SATF, the mailroom only applies free postage for the mailing of

claims to the Board of Control and for the filing of legal documents to any court, and Plaintiff’s mail

did not fall under these categories. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff was also informed that SATF supplies indigent

inmates, such as Plaintiff, with envelopes and postage for five one-ounce letters per week, to be used

for regular or confidential/legal mail, or to use as postage on larger envelopes by attaching them to

the large envelope. Id. Plaintiff was again informed in the Second Level response on June 21, 2005,

that his mail did not qualify for free postage because, pursuant to regulations, it was not addressed

to the Board of Control or to any court. (Exh. A at 11.) On June 29, 2005, Plaintiff was again

informed that as an indigent inmate, he was entitled, upon his request, to “envelopes and the

minimum postage required for first class domestic mail for up to five one ounce letters per week,” 

and that he was entitled to “free and unlimited postage for the mailing of claims to the Board of

[C]ontrol and for the filing of legal documents to any court.” (Id. at 17.) For weeks, Plaintiff

continued to deliver his mail to the mailroom without postage, and each time the mail was returned

to him because he was not entitled to free postage. (Exh. A.) Plaintiff has not explained why he was

unable to mail his grievance to the Director’s Level using the envelopes and minimum postage he was

entitled to each week. Plaintiff also has not explained why he did not borrow postage to mail the

appeal. Based on this evidence, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that obstruction by prison staff 9

prevented him from exhausting his remedies for this appeal. Therefore, with regard to Appeal log

number SATF-E-05-0153, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1997e.

B. October 11, 2005 Appeal10

This appeal was submitted by Plaintiff to the Informal Level on October 11, 2005. (Exh. K.)

The appeal concerned retaliation against Plaintiff by prison staff who allegedly confined Plaintiff in

Ad-Seg under false pretenses pursuant to a hearing held on August 1, 2005. Id. In the appeal,

Plaintiff’s evidence indicates that he had the ability to borrow postage from other inmates. (Exh. A at 2

9

¶8.)

This appeal was never assigned a Log Number, because it was never accepted at any formal level of

10

review.

10

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 10 of 14
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

Plaintiff claimed that "Warden D. G. Adams, acting-captain Lt. E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, and prison

guard A. Larios conspired and acted together in subjecting me to retaliatory confinement in ad-seg

on 8/1/05 under false pretenses after and because ... I lawfully exercised my constitutional rights to

access the courts and petition for redress of grievances at CSATF." (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also claimed

that defendants retaliated against him when they refused to release him, refused to assign him an

investigator, refused to allow him to identify witnesses, falsified a CDC form, and ordered him

transferred to another prison. (Id. at 2.) 

On October 18, 2005, the appeal was rejected at the Informal Level as untimely, and Plaintiff

was advised that there had been too great a time lapse between when the action occurred and when

he filed his appeal. (Id. at 5.) On December 11, 2005, Plaintiff re-submitted the appeal to the

Informal Level, arguing that the appeal was rejected in error. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff maintained that his

appeal should have been accepted, even if untimely, because he was prevented from submitting the

appeal earlier by prison staff who failed to provide him with the supporting documentation he needed

to submit with the appeal. (Id.) On December 20, 2005, the appeal was again rejected as untimely,

and Plaintiff was advised that he could either submit another explanation, or file a new appeal

grieving his failure to receive the subject documentation. (Id. at 7.) On January 19, 2006, Plaintiff

submitted the appeal to the Director's Level of review, claiming that prison staff had prevented him

from completing the Second Level of review. (Id. at 8.) On April 15, 2006, the appeal was rejected

at the Director's Level, advising Plaintiff that the form must be completed through the Second Level

of review before submitting it to the Director's Level. (Id. at 11.) On or about April 26, 2006,

Plaintiff sent a letter to the Secretary of the CDCR, requesting assistance to exhaust his appeal. (Id.

at 12.) On August 1, 2006, Plaintiff's documents were returned to him, advising him again that he

needed to complete the Second Level before proceeding to the Director's Level. (Id. at 13.)

Plaintiff claims that the appeals process was unavailable to him because prison staff refused

to provide him with copies of the documents he needed to submit with the appeal, preventing him

from meeting the fifteen-day deadline. Plaintiff claims that the documentation was not provided to

him directly after the August 11, 2005 hearing, as required by regulations, and that he made several

requests for copies of the documents, without result. Plaintiff maintains that he needed copies of

11

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 11 of 14
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

CDC Form 128-G documenting what had occurred at the August 11, 2005 hearing, to submit with

the appeal, or the appeal would be rejected. 

Defendants have not proven that Plaintiff did not exhaust the remedies that were made

available to him for this appeal. Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37 (which discusses the defendant's burden

to prove that further administrative remedies are “available.”); see also Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d

620, 625 (9th Cir.2005) (recognizing that a prisoner satisfied the exhaustion requirement by showing

his grievance had been rejected as untimely because he “could go no further in the prison's

administrative system; no remedies remained available to him”). Defendants have not addressed

Plaintiff’s assertion that prison staff failed to give him documentation directly following the August

11, 2005 hearing, or his assertion that despite his requests, he was not provided documentation in time

to file a timely appeal. In addition, Defendants have not provided any response to Plaintiff’s

contention that he was required to submit documentation with the appeal at the Informal Level, or his

appeal would be rejected. Therefore, with regard to this appeal, in which Plaintiff claims that he 11

was retaliated against when he was confined in Ad-Seg under false pretenses pursuant to a hearing

held on August 1, 2005, the Court finds that Plaintiff has exhausted his “available” remedies pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of raising and proving the absence

of exhaustion with regard to all of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims. Defendants have not proven that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies with regard to the claim that he was retaliated against when he

was confined in Ad-Seg. However, Defendants have proven that Plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies

with regard to his claims that he was retaliated against when defendants (1) denied him indigent

correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing mail, (4) denied him all

but the May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal News, (5) issued a false disciplinary writeup against Plaintiff for having a clothesline inside his cell, (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF

to limit Plaintiff to a sixty-minute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to

Cal. Code Regs, tit. 15 § 3084.3 provides, “[A]n appeal may be rejected [if T]he appeal is incomplete or

11

necessary supporting documents are not attached.” 

12

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 12 of 14
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

see him, and (7) transferred Plaintiff to another prison. Therefore, the Court shall recommend that

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed February 19, 2010, be

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

2. Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation based on allegations that defendants (1) denied him

indigent correspondence supplies, (2) delayed his mail, (3) obstructed his outgoing

mail, (4) denied him all but the May 2005 issue of his subscription of Prison Legal

News, (5) issued a false disciplinarywrite-up against Plaintiff for having a clothesline

inside his cell, (6) instructed CDCR personnel at SATF to limit Plaintiff to a sixtyminute non-contact visit with a visitor who had come over 250 miles to see him, and

(7) transferred Plaintiff to another prison be DISMISSED from this action for

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies;

3. Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation against defendants Adams, Pugliese, Motty,Guerrero,

Meaders, Johnson, Cuevas, Sherman, Selvy, and Does 1-5 be DISMISSED from this

action for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies;

4. Defendants Adams, Meaders, Johnson, Cuevas, Sherman and Selvy be DISMISSED

from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies with regard to the claims

against them; and

5. This action now proceed against defendants Smith and Tucker for retaliation, based

on Plaintiff’s confinement in Ad-Seg under false pretenses; and against defendants

Pugliese, Smith, Motty, Guerrero, and Does 1-5 for interfering with Plaintiff’s right

to send mail.

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

Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S. C. § 636 (b)(1). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

13

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 13 of 14
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

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time maywaive the right to appeal the order

of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 22, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 51 Filed 08/23/10 Page 14 of 14