Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05668/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05668-14/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

MANUEL JUAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05668-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT RANGEL’S

MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND

THE CLAIM AGAINST HIM BE DISMISSED,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

(Doc. 76)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendant Rangel’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Manuel Juarez (“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 amended complaint, filed March 7, 2005, against defendants Verdin, Gentry, Haws,

Fisher, Schmidt, and Travers for violation of plaintiff’s right to due process with respect to the

validation of plaintiff as a gang associate and the assessment of a SHU term, and against

defendant Rangel for endangering plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On

February 26, 2007, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b), defendant Rangel (“defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to 

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 83 Filed 06/13/07 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 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on June 16, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 43.)

2

exhaust the available administrative remedies. (Doc. 76.) After obtaining an extension of time,

plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on May 30, 2007. (Doc. 82.) 1

B. Legal Standard

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). Exhaustion is required

regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process,

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all

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

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. Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921; 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. 

C. Discussion

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

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 83 Filed 06/13/07 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

3

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, 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. 

Defendant argues that he is entitled to dismissal because a Director’s Level decision is

required to exhaust and plaintiff did not obtain a decision at this level concerning his claim

against him. In support of his motion, defendant submits evidence that although plaintiff

obtained two Director’s Level decisions, neither decision concerned the claim against him. (Doc.

76, Grannis Dec. ¶¶3-5.)

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant’s motion should be denied because

defendant does not deny endangering his life, the motion to dismiss is based solely on failure to

exhaust, and the Grannis declaration does not in and of itself prove plaintiff failed to use the

inmate appeals process. Plaintiff argues that he filed two appeals, one of which was rejected and

one of which was mailed to Sacramento and has not been returned or addressed. Plaintiff argues

that a rejected appeal becomes non-appealable and should be deemed exhausted. Plaintiff argues

that assuming non-exhaustion is found, defendant’s statement to other inmates insinuating

plaintiff was an informant automatically includes defendant in this action by demonstrating the

reasons for his action and demonstrating that he endangered plaintiff’s life. Finally, plaintiff

argues that defendant’s actions bear some relationship to his original action in which a state court

found due process violations.

The sole issue before the court on this motion is whether or not plaintiff exhausted his

Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against defendant Rangel. If plaintiff failed to

exhaust his claim against defendant, defendant is entitled to dismissal, regardless of the merits of

plaintiff’s claim against him. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 83 Filed 06/13/07 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 rejects defendant’s argument that a Director’s Level response is necessary to

satisfy the exhaustion requirement and the mere absence of a Director’s Level response entitles

him to dismissal. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] prisoner need not

press on to exhaust further levels 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.”). In this instance, however, it is clear from the record that plaintiff did not exhaust.

Plaintiff filed an appeal on September 4, 2003. (Doc. 82, pg. 4 ¶8; Exhibit A, pg. 12.)

The appeal was addressed at the informal level of review and then screened out when submitted

at the first formal level of review. (Id., pg. 4 & 6 ¶¶8-10; Exhibit A, pgs. 11. 12.) Plaintiff

argues that he filed an appeal and because it was rejected by the appeals coordinator, it should be

considered exhausted. 

Plaintiff’s appeal was screened out with the following comment, “This was a request for

information and should not have been responded to, however it was and you got your answer. If

you wish to contend property was lost you may write an appeal on the issue and obtain an

informal response.” (Doc. 82, pg. 11.) “[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. 

First, plaintiff was obligated to draft an appeal that complied with the requirements of the

process. The screening out of this appeal does not constitute exhaustion of the appeal. Second, a

review of the appeal in question reveals that it did not grieve the actions of defendant Rangel at

issue in this action. Rather, the appeal related to the confiscation of plaintiff’s property.

Plaintiff also argues that he sent a second appeal to the appeals office in Sacramento and

did not receive a response. (Id., pg. 6 ¶11; Exhibit B pgs. 16, 17.) The second appeal was

initiated on September 15, 2003, grieving the confiscation of plaintiff’s property. (Id., Exhibit B

pg. 16.) As relief, plaintiff sought the return of his photographs and dictionary. (Id.) At the first

formal and second levels, plaintiff again addressed the issue of the confiscation of his property. 

(Id., pgs. 16, 17.) The first mention of defendant Rangel appears in plaintiff’s submission to the

third and final level of review. (Id., pg. 17.) 

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 83 Filed 06/13/07 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

Plaintiff initiated his appeal concerning the confiscation of his property, and the appeal

was classified as a property issue. (Id., pg. 16, 21.) Regardless of whether or not the lack of

response from the Director’s Level might either be found to constitute exhaustion of this appeal

or at least be sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion, the appeal was not initiated and pursued

against defendant Rangel for endangering plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff is required to properly

exhaust by filing an inmate appeal grieving the conduct of defendant Rangel at the lowest level

applicable and pursue the appeal as necessary through the appeals process. Woodford, 126 S.Ct.

at 2382; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.2. Plaintiff did not do so. 

 D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendant Rangel’s

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed February 26, 2007, be GRANTED and the claim against

him be dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

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: June 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05668-LJO -GSA Document 83 Filed 06/13/07 Page 5 of 5