Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06636-7/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

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

on March 10, 2005. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 13.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT C. TYNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-6636 AWI SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE DENIED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 55) 

I. Findings and Recommendations on Motion to Dismiss Claim For Failure to Exhaust

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Charles Chatman (“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 September 1, 2004, against defendants Winett, Vazquez,

Fortson, Lundy, and Johnson for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and defendants

Winett, Vazquez, Lundy, Traynham, Mack, Wells, Jimenez, Duran, Bowman, and Johnson for

violation of the Eighth Amendment based on unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Doc. 11.)

On December 19, 2005, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b), defendants Winett, Vazquez, Fortson, Lundy, Traynham, Mack, Wells, Jimenez, Duran,

Bowman, and Johnson (“defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust the available

administrative remedies. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 27, 2006.1 (Doc. 59.)

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 62 Filed 05/10/06 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

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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

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

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).

“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards,

nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S.

at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. 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 defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Based on the general principle that

summary judgment is on the merits while dismissal of an action for failure to exhaust is not on the

merits, 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 (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 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. Id. 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

Defendants seek to dismiss the claim against Winett, Vazquez, Johnson, and Lundy

stemming from the allegation that defendants forced plaintiff to stand outside in freezing weather

in his underwear to punish him. Defendants contend that plaintiff did not file an appeal grieving this

///

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 62 Filed 05/10/06 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

2

 The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the department’s jurisdiction may appeal any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse

effect upon their welfare.” Id. at 3084.1(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.” Cal. Code Regs. tit

15, § 3084.5 (2006). 

3

 Plaintiff’s copy of the appeal is attached to his amended complaint. (Doc. 10, Ex. B-1.)

3

incident, and did not obtain a Director’s level decision.2 (Motion, Ex. A, Grannis Dec., ¶¶13, 14;

Ex. B, Kitzmiller Dec., ¶¶14, 15.)

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that the administrative remedies were deemed fully

exhausted when prison officials failed to respond to his appeal. Plaintiff contends that after he was

provided with supplies on December 12, 2002, he filled out an inmate appeal grieving the claim,

made a copy for his records, and gave the original to Officer Leisman for routing to the appeals

coordinator.3 (Opp., 3:10-20.) Plaintiff contends that after two weeks passed without a response,

he sent a letter to F. Schmidt, the appeals coordinator, but never received a response. (Id., 3:20-28.)

Plaintiff contends he then sent a complaint to E. Alameida, Jr., the former Director of the California

Department of Corrections, who referred it to Warden Calderon. (Id., 3:26-4:4.) Plaintiff further

contends that there were problems with the appeals process, and that he is not at fault for the

suppression or misplacement of the appeal he submitted, or for the failure of Schmidt to respond to

his letter. (Id., 4:6-15 & 5:14-28.)

Although there are no Ninth Circuit Court cases on point, other Circuit Courts have

addressed the issue of the effect of prison officials’ failure to respond to grievances in a timely

manner, and held that exhaustion occurs when prison officials fail to respond to a grievance within

the policy time limits. Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 2004)

(administrative remedies are exhausted when prison officials fail to timely respond to properly filed

grievance); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (the failure to respond to a

grievance within the policy time limits renders remedy unavailable); Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d

829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (when prison officials fail to respond, the remedy becomes unavailable, and

exhaustion occurs); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. 2001) (district court did not err

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 62 Filed 05/10/06 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

when it declined to dismiss claim for failure to exhaust where prison failed to respond to grievance);

Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999) (when a valid grievance has been filed and the

state’s time for responding has expired, the remedies are deemed exhausted); Underwood v. Wilson,

151 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998) (when time limit for prison’s response has expired, the remedies

are exhausted); see also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003) (recognizing that a

remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy); Brown v.

Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 113 (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 (8th

Cir. 2001) (a remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy).

In joining the Eighth and Fifth Circuits with respect to this issue, the Seventh Circuit Court stated

that it “refuse[d] to interpret the PLRA ‘so narrowly as to . . . permit [prison officials] to exploit the

exhaustion requirement through indefinite delay in responding to the grievances.’” Lewis v.

Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Goodman v. Carter, No. 2000 C 948, 2001

WL 755137, at *3 (N.D.Ill. July 2, 2001)). In this instance, plaintiff has set forth evidence that he

submitted an inmate appeal grieving the claim and then contacted the appeals coordinator when two

weeks passed without a response to his appeal. Given that plaintiff attempted to utilize the appeals

process but did not succeed in obtaining a log number or response to his appeal, and did not

thereafter receive a response from the appeals coordinator to his inquiry letter, the court finds that

defendants are not entitled to dismissal of the claim. In order to prevail on their motion to dismiss,

defendants must demonstrate the existence of available administrative remedies. Brown v. Valoff,

422 F.3d 926, 936-40 (9th Cir. 2005). Prison officials may not render the appeals process

unavailable by failing to process appeals and then argue that the prisoner failed to exhaust. The court

finds that defendants have not met their burden of proving the absence of exhaustion, and the court

shall therefore recommend that defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim be denied, without

prejudice. 

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 62 Filed 05/10/06 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

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s claim against defendants Winett, Vazquez, Johnson, and Lundy, stemming from

the allegation that defendants forced plaintiff to stand outside in freezing weather in his underwear

to punish him, for failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies as mandated by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a), filed December 19, 2005, be DENIED, without prejudice.

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: May 9, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06636-OWW -SMS Document 62 Filed 05/10/06 Page 5 of 5