Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

13-CV-0973GPC (BGS)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION: TO

GRANT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 12]

vs.

A. NUNEZ, ET AL.,

Defendants.

I. Introduction

On April 23, 2013, Brandon Meeks (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, alleging constitutional violations for an incident occurring on

April 25, 2011. (Doc. No. 1.) The alleged incident took place during Plaintiff’s

incarceration at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. (Doc.

No. 12.) The complaint names prison guards A. Nunez and T. Scott, along with

correctional sergeant J. Wilborn and registered nurse M. Estrada, as defendants. (Doc.

No. 1) On September 6, 2013, Defendants J. Wilborn and M. Estrada filed a motion to

dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b). (Id.) Defendants served Plaintiff with a Wyatt notice to inform him

of his right to submit evidence to rebut Defendants’ motion. (Id.) On September 19,

2013, the Court also provided Plaintiff with a Wyatt notice regarding Defendants’

motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 13.) On October 16, 2013, Defendants A. Nunez and T.

- 1 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
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

Scott, joined in Wilborn and Estrada’s motion to dismiss. (Doc No. 18.) On December

18, 2013, Plaintiff filed for an extension of time to file an opposition. (Doc. No. 31.)

The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and extended Plaintiff’s deadline to January 8,

2014. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff, however, did not file an opposition. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants’

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies be

GRANTED. 

II. Background

Plaintiff alleges that on April 25, 2011, prison guards Nunez and Scott brutally

assaulted him in the Donovan Correctional Facility health center. (Doc. No. 1.)

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Nunez and Scott threatened him, punched him, kicked

him, and kneed him in the face, head and upper torso multiple times. (Id.) Plaintiff

claims Nunez and Scott’s use of excessive force violated his constitutional rights. (Id.)

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Wilborn’s deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

safety and Defendant Estrada’s failure to provide adequate medical care violated his

rights. (Id.)

The incident began when Plaintiff experienced difficulty putting on his socks

and orthopaedic boots after an X-ray. At this time, Plaintiff was in waist and leg

restraints with very limited mobility. Defendant Nunez demanded Plaintiff walk

without his orthopaedic boots and Plaintiff responded that he could not. Nunez then

yanked Plaintiff off the X-ray table. Plaintiff’s legs buckled and he collapsed to the

floor in his restraints. While on the floor, Plaintiff yelled for help as Defendant Wilborn

passed in the hallway. Wilborn stopped, briefly spoke with Nunez and immediately left

the area. Nunez then closed the door to the X-ray room, where he threatened Plaintiff. 

Defendant Scott arrived in the X-ray room moments later. Plaintiff alleges Nunez and

Scott then brutally assaulted him while he was helpless in his restraints. (Id.)

Plaintiff further alleges that following the attack, Defendant Estrada merely

wiped the blood off his face and failed to document the cause of his injuries.

- 2 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
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

Ultimately, the attack required emergency transport and a four-day hospitalization at

Tri City Medical Center in Oceanside, California. Plaintiff was hospitalized from April

25, 2011 to April 29, 2011. Plaintiff’s injuries included broken facial bones, active

bleeding and lacerations along with irreversible damage to Plaintiff’s appearance. (Id.)

On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff returned to Donovan where he was housed until May

10, 2011. (Id.) On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff was transferred to Salinas Valley State

Prison. 

Defendants filed an unenumerated 12(b) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.

(Doc. Nos. 12, 18.) Defendants’ motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s action on the

grounds he failed to properly and timely exhaust all administrative remedies before

filing civil suit. (Id.) 

III. Discussion

A. Legal Standards for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative

Remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1995 provides in pertinent

part:

No 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). 

“Congress enacted § 1997e(a) to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of

prisoner suits.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Prisoners are not required

to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in complaints because failure to exhaust

is an affirmative defense under the PLRA. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007).

The proper vehicle for challenging a complaint based on failure to exhaust

administrative remedies is a nonenumerated motion under Rule 12(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.2003).

Unlike under Rule 12(b)(6), “[i]n deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust

- 3 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
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

nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed

issues of fact.” Id. at 1119–20. If the district court concludes that the prisoner has failed

to exhaust his or her administrative remedies, the claim should be dismissed without

prejudice. O'Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059, 1063 (9th Cir.2007);

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

 Failure to exhaust may not be waived. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85–86

(2006) (“[e]xhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the district court, but is

mandatory”). The United States Supreme Court stated that “[t]here is no question that

exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be

brought in court.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 211. A prisoner also cannot satisfy the PLRA's

exhaustion requirement by “filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective

administrative grievance or appeal.” Woodford, 584 U.S. at 83–84. Nor can a prisoner

who did not make any attempt to utilize the prison grievance system sidestep the

exhaustion requirement by arguing that it now would be futile to attempt to exhaust

within the prison system. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6 (2002) (“we stress

the point ... that we will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion

requirements where Congress has provided otherwise”); see also Woodford, 584 U.S.

at 100 (“if the party never pursues all available avenues of administrative review, the

person will never be able to sue in federal court”).

More recently, the Supreme Court clarified the exhaustion rule further, holding

that it is the prisoner's observance of the state's regulations and procedures concerning

its administrative appeals process, and not the PLRA itself, that determines whether a

prisoner has properly exhausted administrative remedies. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. For

this reason, the particulars of the California system are essential to determine whether

Plaintiff complied with those regulations and properly exhausted the claims he brings

in this lawsuit.

///

///

- 4 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
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

B. The California System

The administrative appeal system for California inmates is codified in Title 15

of the California Code of Regulations. Effective January 28, 2011, California’s

regulations concerning the administrative appeals process were updated and changed

in some respects. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”) now has a three-level appellate review process, and the informal level of

review has been abolished. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, sections 3084.2, 3084.7 (2011).

Inmates and parolees may “appeal any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission

by the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15 sec. 3084.1 (2011). 

The administrative appeal system has strict time guidelines that must be followed

in order to properly exhaust. Specifically, an appeal must be submitted to the appeals

coordinator at the institution where the disputed event took place within 30 calendar

days of the event or decision being appealed. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, sec. 3084(f);

3084.8(a); 3084.8(b) (2011). The appeals coordinator may cancel and reject an appeal

within 30 calender days of the event or decision being appealed. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15

sec. 3084.8(b). The appeals coordinator may also cancel and reject an appeal if the

inmate fails to submit it within these time constraints. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, sec.

3084.6(c)(4) (2011).

An administrative appeal may only contain one issue or set of related issues.

Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, sec. 3084.2, 3084.2(a)(1) (2011). If an inmate adds an issue to

the appeal that was not included when it was originally submitted, administrative

remedies are deemed not exhausted as to that new issue that was not addressed by

prison staff through all required levels of administrative review. Cal.Code Regs. tit.

sec. 3084.1(b) (2011) (emphasis added). The inmate is required to list all staff members

involved and describe their involvement in the issue. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15

sec.3084.2(a)(3) (2011). Appeals are to be initially submitted directly to the appeals

coordinator at the inmate’s institution for review and processing at the first and second

- 5 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
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

levels of review. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, sec.3084.7(a) (2011).

An inmate wishing to exhaust administrative remedies is required to complete

three steps: (1) a first-level review by the institution's division head; (2) a second-level

review conducted by the institution head, no lower than Chief Deputy Warden, or his

or her designee; and (3) the third-level review, conducted by the Office of Appeals, in

Sacramento, California. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, sec. 3084.7 (2011). A decision by the

Office of Appeals constitutes the Secretary's decision. The administrative process is

completed, or exhausted, only after the inmate has complied with all prison grievance

procedures, and received a decision from the Office of Appeals. Cal.Code Regs. tit. sec.

3084.7(c)(3) (2011); Woodford, 541 U.S. at 95–96. The administrative process must

be completely exhausted before the inmate files his or her civil rights lawsuit. Vaden

v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.2006).

C. Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust His Claims Against All Defendants

Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his claims according to the CDCR guidelines.

The CDCR requires prisoners to file an administrative appeal with the local institution

appeals coordinator within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident at issue. See Cal. 1

Code Regs. Tit. 15, sec. 3084 (f); 3084.2 (c); 3084.8(b) (2011). Plaintiff filed his

appeal on the thirtieth and final day, however, he filed the appeal with Salinas Valley

State Prison ("Salinas"), the incorrect institution. The appeal was due by the thirtieth

day at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("Donovan"), in San Diego—the institution

where the alleged violation took place. (Decl. Olson at Doc. No. 12-5.) Salinas

officials properly rejected Plaintiff’s appeal because Salinas was not the proper CDCR

unit for review. (Decl. Olson at Ex. A.) When Plaintiff mailed the appeal to Donovan,

the 30 day deadline had expired and Donovan officials properly rejected Plaintiff’s

Appeals must be submitted at the institution where the disputed event occurred so that the 1

persons reviewing the appeal have the requisite “signature authority for the approval or disapproval

of an appeal response.” Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, sec. 3084 (f). The appropriate reviewer and thus the

individual with the signatory authority is the appeals coordinator at the institution where the alleged

incident occurred. (Decl. Olson at Doc. No. 12-5.) 

- 6 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
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

appeal not only as untimely, but also for failing to attach required documents. (Decl.

Olson at Doc. No. 12-5 at ¶¶ 10-13.) 

In the Ninth Circuit, a prisoner’s failure to exhaust can be excused where

administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d

1217, 1226 (9 Cir. 2010.) Administrative remedies are “effectively unavailable” when th

prison officials improperly screen a grievance that would have been sufficient to

exhaust the claim. Id. That exception does not apply here because the grievance was

not improperly screened. The screening and rejection of the grievance by Salinas’s

appeals coordinator was proper because Plaintiff submitted the grievance to the

incorrect institution. Further, the rejection and cancellation of Plaintiff’s grievance

submitted to Donovan was also proper because it was not received within the required

time and also failed to attach required documents. (Decl. Olson at 12-5.) 

Plaintiff had sufficient time and opportunity to file his administrative appeal

within the 30 day period. For instance, Plaintiff claims Defendants Nunez and Scott

assaulted him on April 25, 2011, at Donovan. Therefore, Plaintiff's administrative

appeal was due 30 days from this date—May 25, 2011. The record before the Court

shows Plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to submit his appeal on time and at the

correct institution. (See Decl. Olson at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff was released from the hospital on

April 29, 2011 and immediately returned to Donovan. Thus, Plaintiff had access to

appeals forms, writing utensils and the means to directly submit his appeal to Donovan

officials at any time between April 29 and the date he was transferred to Salinas—May

10, 2011. (Decl. Olson at ¶ 9.) Even after being transferred to Salinas, Plaintiff could

have directly mailed an appeal to Donovan prior to the 30 days expiration on May 25,

2011. In fact, after Plaintiff received the rejection from Salinas’s appeals coordinator

on May 26, 2011, Plaintiff mailed his appeal directly to Donovan on May 30, 2011, but

by this time the grievance was untimely. (Decl. Olson at Ex. A.) 

Plaintiff filed additional appeals in an attempt to reverse the rejection of his

untimely grievance. (Decl. Olson at Doc. No. 12-5.) None of these subsequent

- 7 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
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

submissions, however, demonstrate Plaintiff’s inability to file the initial appeal on time. 

Nor do any of them even attempt to argue that Plaintiff was unable to file his appeal at

Donovan within the required time constraints. (Id.) Instead, these subsequent filings

attempt to argue the merits of Plaintiff’s grievance. The appeals coordinator’s office

rejected these later appeals on varied valid grounds. Some of the appeals did not

include the proper documentation, some attempted to resubmit an already cancelled

appeal, and some were duplicative of one another. (Decl. Olson,¶¶ 17-22; Exh’s. F-J;

Doc. No. 12-5.) Regardless, none of these subsequent appeals properly exhausted the

claims Plaintiff attempts to bring in federal court, and the Court does not have

discretion to excuse exhaustion in the interests of justice. Booth, 532, U.S. at 741 n.

5, 6. 

Further, it is evident Plaintiff had adequate knowledge of the administrative

grievance process and could have filed his appeal on time. Plaintiff’s appellate history

demonstrates his familiarity with the administrative system. For example, Plaintiff

advanced an administrative appeal on an unrelated matter through the first two levels

of review in early 2011—when the time constraint for filing the first grievance was a

mere 15 days. (Decl. Olson, ¶ 25; Exh. K; Doc No. 12-5.) Plaintiff advanced various

other appeals to the third level in five different California Prisons since 2007. (Decl.

J.D. Lozano, ¶ 9; Exh. A; Doc. No. 12-4.) In addition, Corcoran State Prison placed

Plaintiff under appeals restriction for overuse of the system. (Decl. Olson, ¶ 25; Exh.

K; Doc No. 12-5.) This history and evidence of restriction shows Plaintiff’s proficiency

and familiarity with the administrative appeals system and indicates he had a full and

fair opportunity to properly file his grievance on time, but failed to do so. 

 Accordingly, Defendants met their burden of proving lack of exhaustion. 

Defendants’ motion indicates Plaintiff was familiar with the appeals process and had

the opportunity to timely file his grievance while he was still housed at Donovan. Even

after Plaintiff was transferred to Salinas he could have timely mailed his appeal

directly to Donovan officials. Plaintiff, however, failed to properly and timely file his

- 8 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
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

administrative grievance. For all of the reasons stated, the Court recommends

Plaintiff’s claim be dismissed without prejudice but also without leave to amend

because any attempt to amend to exhaust his administrative grievance at this time

would be futile.

D. Nurse Estrada

In addition to recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s inadequate medical

attention claim against Defendant Estrada for failure to exhaust based on the reasons

stated above, Plaintiff surely failed to exhaust his claims against Estrada by failing to

mention her in his initial grievance. Pursuant to California regulations, prisoners are

required to name each and every prison official whose conduct they are grieving in

their original filing. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.2(a)(3). Even if Plaintiff’s appeal

regarding the other defendants was timely, which it was not, and he properly completed

the administrative grievance process as to those defendants, this complaint would be

defective against Defendant Estrada because she was not named in Plaintiff’s initial

602 grievance. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends the claim against Defendant Estrada be

dismissed without prejudice but also without leave to amend because any attempt to

amend to establish exhaustion would be futile.

IV. Conclusion

Having reviewed the matter, this Report and Recommendation Magistrate Judge

is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). For all of the reasons stated above, the Court recommends the

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED without prejudice but also without

leave to amend because amendment would be futile since the time to exhaust

administrative remedies passed. 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 20, 2014, 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.”

- 9 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with

the Court and served on all parties within seven (7) days of being served with

objections. 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. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 31, 2014

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

- 10 - 13cv973-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 34 Filed 01/31/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10