Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04341/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04341-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAMIT REZA SALAHVARZI,

Plaintiff,

v.

Deputy BUTTI; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-4341 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION

Hamit Reza Salahvarzi, currently incarcerated at a detention facility in San Diego, filed this

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning incidents that occurred while he was

incarcerated at the Martinez Detention Facility in Contra Costa County. Defendants have moved

to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before

filing this action. Plaintiff has opposed the motion. The court will grant the motion and dismiss

the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court will not reach the

defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment because the failure to exhaust requires

dismissal of the complaint, regardless of the merits of plaintiff's claims or the qualified immunity

defense.

BACKGROUND
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

A. Procedural History

Salahvarzi's complaint concerned incidents that occurred in July 2003, when he was

incarcerated in the Contra Costa County Jail. He alleged that he had been subjected to excessive

force, deliberate indifference to his safety, and deliberate indifference to his medical needs by

various members of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. The court found cognizable

Salahvarzi's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his rights under the Eighth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Defendants have moved to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for summary adjudication

of claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 56. Salahvarzi has opposed the

motion.

B. Exhaustion Facts

The administrative remedy process available at the Contra Costa County Detention Facility

("the jail") is described in sections 3-6 of the Detention Division Policies and Procedures Manual

of the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff (the "manual"). See Lawrence Decl., ¶ 5 and

Exh. C. Inmates receive information on the manual when they are in the jail and copies of the

manual are available in the jail modules for inmates to consult and review. 

The administrative remedy process at the jail involves an initial grievance and an appeal to

the facility commander if the inmate is dissatisfied with the response to the grievance. At the first

level, if the sergeant/supervisor is unable to resolve the grievance at that level, he will refer the

request form to the operations sergeant who will give a written response to the inmate. Manual,

Procedure 3. The inmate may appeal to the facility commander. Manual, Procedure 4 & 5.

Salahvarzi filed several inmate grievances concerning the use of force on him on medical

care he needed and an attack by other inmates in early July 2003. There is no evidence, however,

that he appealed from the decisions on any of these grievances. Salahvarzi also does not assert that

he did file any appeal.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1The motion is called an "unenumerated" Rule 12(b) motion because it is not brought under any one

ofthe seven numbered sub-parts of Rule 12(b) of the FederalRules ofCivil Procedure. See Ritza, infra, 837

F.2d at 369. 

3

DISCUSSION

A. The Procedural Mechanism For Raising Exhaustion Problems

A prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a matter in abatement.

Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune,

315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50 (2003). In Wyatt v. Terhune , 315 F.3d

at 1119, the Ninth Circuit explained that the proper way to establish nonexhaustion was by a

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than in a motion for summary judgment.1 This was so

because the "failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies that are not jurisdictional should be treated

as a matter in abatement." Id. The summary judgment procedure is a decision on the merits while

a dismissal for failure to exhaust is not on the merits. "In deciding a motion to dismiss for a

failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide

disputed issues of fact." Id. at 1119-20, citing Ritza v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's

Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988). Ritza explained that "[t]he distinction between

summary judgment and dismissal for matters in abatement bears on the district court's authority

to resolve factual disputes and thus affects the standard of review to be applied by this court." Id.

at 369. The court can decide factual issues in a jurisdictional or related type of motion because

there is no right to a jury trial as to that portion of the case, unlike the merits of the case (where

there is a right to a jury trial). See id. Wyatt and Ritza allow this court to resolve factual disputes,

but only with regard to the exhaustion issue. 

B. Exhaustion

"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). The Contra

Costa County Sheriff's Department provides an administrative appeals process. An inmate may
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

file a grievance regarding medical care, conditions of confinement and various other topics. See

Manual, § 3-6. An inmate must file a grievance and then appeal an adverse decision to the facility

commander to exhaust his administrative remedies in the jail. 

Defendants have presented evidence that there was no record of any inmate appeal at the

highest level from Salahvarzi. Salahvarzi does not dispute this. Salahvarzi contends he filed

numerous inmate grievances, but a grievance is not an appeal and an appeal was necessary to

exhaust the administrative remedies at the jail. Because Salahvarzi had not exhausted his

administrative remedies before filing this action, the action was filed prematurely and must be

dismissed under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

C. Miscellaneous Motions

After he filed his opposition to defendants' motion, Salahvarzi filed a motion for

enlargement of time under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so that he could

conduct discovery. Attached to the motion for enlargement of time was a document entitled

"discovery motion" that described the documents Salahvarzi wants to obtain, e.g., documents

relating to his medical condition and disciplinary reports. As noted earlier, Salahvarzi has not

contended that he did file inmate appeals on any of his inmate grievances. Even if the court

ignored the fact that Salahvarzi has not propounded a proper discovery request and even if the court

ignored the fact that defendants would likely be entitled to a stay of discovery pending resolution

of their summary judgment motion as to the qualified immunity defense, the fact remains that the

documents Salahvarzi wishes to obtain through discovery would not enable him to defeat the

motion to dismiss. Because the motion to dismiss is being granted, the court will not reach the

merits of Salahvarzi's claims and defendants' qualified immunity defense that are covered in

defendants' motion for summary judgment. Discovery on the merits of the claims could not help

Salahvarzi avoid the dismissal. The motion for enlargement of time therefore is DENIED.

(Docket # 26.) To be clear, the court notes that Salahvarzi was not seeking an extension of time

to oppose the motion to dismiss and the court did consider Salahvarzi's "motion opposing
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

summary judgment" (docket # 25) and even his belated declaration (docket # 28) in ruling on

defendants' motion to dismiss. 

Salahvarzi also has moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A

district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent

an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

before deciding on a request for counsel under section 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. Based on the record before

it, the court is not able to determine that there is a likelihood of success on the merits and the

complaint does not raise difficult legal claims. The motions for appointment of counsel are

DENIED. (Docket # 25 and # 27.)

Salahvarzi filed a "motion requesting a court order to receive medical care for my arms and

wrists from U.S.I.N.S." At the time he filed the motion, Salahvarzi was housed in the San Diego

Correctional Facility in San Diego apparently as a detainee of the immigration authority and was

not under the custody of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. Salahvarzi's motion is

DENIED because the I.N.S. (or other immigration authority) is not a defendant in this action and

the alleged inadequate treatment is occurring in the Southern District of California. (Docket #

24.) If Salahvarzi believes he is receiving inadequate medical care in a San Diego facility, he may

file an action in the San Diego County Superior Court or in the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of California. The Northern District of California is not the appropriate place

to complain about allegedly inadequate medical care in a San Diego facility.

CONCLUSION

Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

before filing this action. (Docket # 13.) This action is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

filing a new action after he exhausts his administrative remedies as to all claims against all

defendants. 

The court now rules on several miscellaneous motions filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion

for an enlargement of time to file his opposition is DENIED. (Docket # 26.) Plaintiff's motions

for appointment of counsel are DENIED. (Docket # 25 and # 27.) Plaintiff's motion for medical

treatment is DENIED. (Docket # 24.)

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September _6__, 2005 _______________________ 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAMIT REZA SALAHVARZI,

Plaintiff,

v.

Deputy BUTTI; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-4341 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION

Hamit Reza Salahvarzi, currently incarcerated at a detention facility in San Diego, filed this

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning incidents that occurred while he was

incarcerated at the Martinez Detention Facility in Contra Costa County. Defendants have moved

to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before

filing this action. Plaintiff has opposed the motion. The court will grant the motion and dismiss

the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court will not reach the

defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment because the failure to exhaust requires

dismissal of the complaint, regardless of the merits of plaintiff's claims or the qualified immunity

defense.

BACKGROUND
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

A. Procedural History

Salahvarzi's complaint concerned incidents that occurred in July 2003, when he was

incarcerated in the Contra Costa County Jail. He alleged that he had been subjected to excessive

force, deliberate indifference to his safety, and deliberate indifference to his medical needs by

various members of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. The court found cognizable

Salahvarzi's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his rights under the Eighth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Defendants have moved to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for summary adjudication

of claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 56. Salahvarzi has opposed the

motion.

B. Exhaustion Facts

The administrative remedy process available at the Contra Costa County Detention Facility

("the jail") is described in sections 3-6 of the Detention Division Policies and Procedures Manual

of the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff (the "manual"). See Lawrence Decl., ¶ 5 and

Exh. C. Inmates receive information on the manual when they are in the jail and copies of the

manual are available in the jail modules for inmates to consult and review. 

The administrative remedy process at the jail involves an initial grievance and an appeal to

the facility commander if the inmate is dissatisfied with the response to the grievance. At the first

level, if the sergeant/supervisor is unable to resolve the grievance at that level, he will refer the

request form to the operations sergeant who will give a written response to the inmate. Manual,

Procedure 3. The inmate may appeal to the facility commander. Manual, Procedure 4 & 5.

Salahvarzi filed several inmate grievances concerning the use of force on him on medical

care he needed and an attack by other inmates in early July 2003. There is no evidence, however,

that he appealed from the decisions on any of these grievances. Salahvarzi also does not assert that

he did file any appeal.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1The motion is called an "unenumerated" Rule 12(b) motion because it is not brought under any one

ofthe seven numbered sub-parts of Rule 12(b) of the FederalRules ofCivil Procedure. See Ritza, infra, 837

F.2d at 369. 

3

DISCUSSION

A. The Procedural Mechanism For Raising Exhaustion Problems

A prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a matter in abatement.

Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune,

315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50 (2003). In Wyatt v. Terhune , 315 F.3d

at 1119, the Ninth Circuit explained that the proper way to establish nonexhaustion was by a

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than in a motion for summary judgment.1 This was so

because the "failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies that are not jurisdictional should be treated

as a matter in abatement." Id. The summary judgment procedure is a decision on the merits while

a dismissal for failure to exhaust is not on the merits. "In deciding a motion to dismiss for a

failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide

disputed issues of fact." Id. at 1119-20, citing Ritza v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's

Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988). Ritza explained that "[t]he distinction between

summary judgment and dismissal for matters in abatement bears on the district court's authority

to resolve factual disputes and thus affects the standard of review to be applied by this court." Id.

at 369. The court can decide factual issues in a jurisdictional or related type of motion because

there is no right to a jury trial as to that portion of the case, unlike the merits of the case (where

there is a right to a jury trial). See id. Wyatt and Ritza allow this court to resolve factual disputes,

but only with regard to the exhaustion issue. 

B. Exhaustion

"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). The Contra

Costa County Sheriff's Department provides an administrative appeals process. An inmate may
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

file a grievance regarding medical care, conditions of confinement and various other topics. See

Manual, § 3-6. An inmate must file a grievance and then appeal an adverse decision to the facility

commander to exhaust his administrative remedies in the jail. 

Defendants have presented evidence that there was no record of any inmate appeal at the

highest level from Salahvarzi. Salahvarzi does not dispute this. Salahvarzi contends he filed

numerous inmate grievances, but a grievance is not an appeal and an appeal was necessary to

exhaust the administrative remedies at the jail. Because Salahvarzi had not exhausted his

administrative remedies before filing this action, the action was filed prematurely and must be

dismissed under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

C. Miscellaneous Motions

After he filed his opposition to defendants' motion, Salahvarzi filed a motion for

enlargement of time under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so that he could

conduct discovery. Attached to the motion for enlargement of time was a document entitled

"discovery motion" that described the documents Salahvarzi wants to obtain, e.g., documents

relating to his medical condition and disciplinary reports. As noted earlier, Salahvarzi has not

contended that he did file inmate appeals on any of his inmate grievances. Even if the court

ignored the fact that Salahvarzi has not propounded a proper discovery request and even if the court

ignored the fact that defendants would likely be entitled to a stay of discovery pending resolution

of their summary judgment motion as to the qualified immunity defense, the fact remains that the

documents Salahvarzi wishes to obtain through discovery would not enable him to defeat the

motion to dismiss. Because the motion to dismiss is being granted, the court will not reach the

merits of Salahvarzi's claims and defendants' qualified immunity defense that are covered in

defendants' motion for summary judgment. Discovery on the merits of the claims could not help

Salahvarzi avoid the dismissal. The motion for enlargement of time therefore is DENIED.

(Docket # 26.) To be clear, the court notes that Salahvarzi was not seeking an extension of time

to oppose the motion to dismiss and the court did consider Salahvarzi's "motion opposing
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

summary judgment" (docket # 25) and even his belated declaration (docket # 28) in ruling on

defendants' motion to dismiss. 

Salahvarzi also has moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A

district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent

an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

before deciding on a request for counsel under section 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. Based on the record before

it, the court is not able to determine that there is a likelihood of success on the merits and the

complaint does not raise difficult legal claims. The motions for appointment of counsel are

DENIED. (Docket # 25 and # 27.)

Salahvarzi filed a "motion requesting a court order to receive medical care for my arms and

wrists from U.S.I.N.S." At the time he filed the motion, Salahvarzi was housed in the San Diego

Correctional Facility in San Diego apparently as a detainee of the immigration authority and was

not under the custody of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. Salahvarzi's motion is

DENIED because the I.N.S. (or other immigration authority) is not a defendant in this action and

the alleged inadequate treatment is occurring in the Southern District of California. (Docket #

24.) If Salahvarzi believes he is receiving inadequate medical care in a San Diego facility, he may

file an action in the San Diego County Superior Court or in the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of California. The Northern District of California is not the appropriate place

to complain about allegedly inadequate medical care in a San Diego facility.

CONCLUSION

Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

before filing this action. (Docket # 13.) This action is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

filing a new action after he exhausts his administrative remedies as to all claims against all

defendants. 

The court now rules on several miscellaneous motions filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion

for an enlargement of time to file his opposition is DENIED. (Docket # 26.) Plaintiff's motions

for appointment of counsel are DENIED. (Docket # 25 and # 27.) Plaintiff's motion for medical

treatment is DENIED. (Docket # 24.)

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September _6__, 2005 _______________________ 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge