Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00228-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Elliot Eugene RollingsPleasant,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 03-0228 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Deuel Vocational Ins.,

et. al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner without counsel who claims, pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that: (1) March 16, 2002, defendants Rose,

Quesada, Valenzuela, Velasquez and Nowak failed to protect

plaintiff when they permitted an inmate known to be dangerous to

enter an exercise yard without searching him; (2) Nowak failed to

protect plaintiff when he permitted the assailant to climb two

fences separating exercise yards and attack plaintiff with a

knife; (3) when he was attacked, Velasquez and Nowak fired 15

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 6
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

2

shots at plaintiff; (4) defendant Quesada used an entire can of

pepper spray on plaintiff even though the assailant was

attempting to stab plaintiff; (5) defendants Quesada, Thomas,

Rose and Valenzuela failed to protect plaintiff because they

merely ordered inmates to get down but did not otherwise

intervene despite plaintiff’s calls for help; (6) defendant Reed

threw plaintiff from a wheelchair while plaintiff was in waist

and leg restraints; (7) defendant Queseda paraded plaintiff

around female guards while plaintiff’s pants were down; and (8)

defendants Hernandez, Cox, and Thomas hit plaintiff with their

knees in the back and neck area. Defendants move to dismiss upon

the ground plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative

remedies. 

On a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings

and decide disputed facts. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th

Cir. 2002). 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that a prisoner may

bring no section 1983 action until he has exhausted such

administrative remedies as are available. The requirement is

mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The

administrative remedy must be exhausted before suit is brought

and a prisoner is not entitled to a stay of judicial proceedings

in order to exhaust. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.

2002). Where a litigant requests leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, suit commences when the request is granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (court may “authorize commencement” of suit

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 6
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

3

without prepayment of filing fee for person demonstrating

inability to pay). 

California prisoners may appeal “any departmental decision,

action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having

an adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 Cal. Admin. Code 

§ 3084.1(a). The regulations require the use of specific forms

upon which the prisoner must “describe the problem and action

requested,” but require no specific content. 15 Cal. Admin. Code

§§ 3084.2, 3085 (designating use of CDC Form 602 Inmate/Parolee

Appeal Form for all grievances except those related to

disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which are

filed on CDC Form 1824, Reasonable Modification or Accommodation

Request). Prisoners ordinarily must present their allegations on

one informal and three formal levels of review. 15 Cal. Admin.

Code § 3084.5. While presentation on the third level, the

Director’s Level of Review, exhausts the remedy for departmental

purposes, 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.1(a), If an appeal is

denied at the first formal level on the ground time limits were

exceeded, the administrative remedy is exhausted because prison

regulations do not provide for further review of an appeal

decided on this ground. Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 624 (9th 

Cir. 2005). Defendant has the burden of identifying the

remedies that remain available. Ibid.

June 2, 2002, plaintiff submitted an appeal alleging he was

attacked by an inmate March 16, 2002, was shot repeatedly by

Nowak and Velasquez on order of Queseda and stating his belief

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/09/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

that corrections staff several times orchestrated attacks on him

by other inmates in retaliation for filing suit against DVI

officials. He also alleged DVI staff ignored his March 2002

appeal of the attack. He requested medical attention, access to

a telephone to call his family and to seek legal assistance and a

copy of his March 2002 appeal. The informal level of review was

bypassed. June 11, 2002, the reviewer on the first formal level

partially granted the appeal. A physician examined plaintiff and

ordered an orthopedic consultation but plaintiff was told to

discuss use of a telephone with custody staff.

June 21, 2002, plaintiff appealed stating he was satisfied

with the medical response but he wanted to know why his March

2002 appeal was overlooked, he wanted a copy of the appeal and he

requested appeals staff to contact custody staff about

plaintiff’s use of a telephone.

The Chief Deputy Warden cancelled plaintiff’s appeal August

8, 2002, upon the ground plaintiff failed to cooperate during the

interview required on the second level of review by interrupting

and arguing with the appeals coordinator. Plaintiff was notified

he could appeal the cancellation to the Director’s Level of 

Review.

November 7, 2004, plaintiff appealed to the Director’s Level

of Review, explaining that beginning August 13, 2002, he suffered

from mental illness that prevented him from articulating his

position and several times lost his property because of

transfers. February 25, 2005, the appeal was rejected as

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/09/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

untimely.

Defendants assert some claims are unexhausted because

plaintiff failed to include in his June 2, 2002, appeal all

allegations made in his civil rights complaint, including the

names of all defendants. 

The Ninth Circuit has explained that a California prisoner

who correctly completes an appeal form provided by prison

officials provides information adequate to exhaust the

administrative remedy. See Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181 (9th

Cir. 2005) (A.D.A. claims). Plaintiff described the problem and

action requested on the form provided and so satisfied section

1997e(a).

Prison officials partially granted plaintiff’s June 2, 2002,

appeal. Even though plaintiff’s appeal of the partial denial was

canceled on the second level of review, he had the opportunity to

appeal to the Director’s Level of Review and he did so. An

untimely appeal does not defeat exhaustion. Ngo, 403 F.3d at

631. Defendants do not identify any other administrative remedy

that was available to plaintiff. Id. at 626.

For these reasons, I find plaintiff exhausted available 

administrative remedies.

I hereby recommend defendant’s January 26, 2005, motion to

dismiss be denied and defendants be directed to file and serve an 

answer within 30 days.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/09/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: August 9, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00228-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/09/05 Page 6 of 6