Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00260/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00260-14/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

 This action is proceeding on the fourth amended complaint, filed August 20, 2007, on 1

claims against defendants M. Cry, White, Yarber, and Teresa A. Schwartz.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRELL O’NEAL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0260 LKK JFM P

vs.

WHITE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to

Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit and that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 

ALLEGATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT1

Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint contains the following allegations. On July

28, 2004, plaintiff submitted a CDC 602 appeal which was rejected by defendant Cry on the

ground that it presented a duplicate issue. Defendant Cry repeatedly rejected plaintiff’s concerns

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 46 Filed 05/29/08 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

about his safety following plaintiff’s sexual abuse by a cellmate, and plaintiff continues to be

celled with violent inmates. 

On September 16, 2003, plaintiff told defendant White, his clinician, “that spiders

was crawling in my skin and I used a razor blade to get them out.” Fourth Amended Complaint,

filed August 20, 2007, at 4. Defendant White failed to refer plaintiff to a psychiatrist or to the

Department of Mental Health. Defendant White failed to prevent further harm to plaintiff after

he was sexually abused by his cellmate. Defendant White was a witness and testified at a

disciplinary hearing against plaintiff. Defendant Schwartz was informed about plaintiff’s

grievance but allowed defendants to violate plaintiff’s rights.

On February 28, 2005, plaintiff told defendant Yarber that he was “hearing

suicidal voices ordering [him] to kill [him]self.” Fourth Amended Complaint, at 4. Defendant

Yarber failed to do anything to protect plaintiff or have him seen by a doctor.

A copy of plaintiff’s amended complaint and other documents filed in this action,

as well as copies of inmate grievances, medical records, and other documents are attached as

exhibits to the fourth amended complaint.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

As noted above, defendants move to dismiss the complaint on two grounds. First,

they contend that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his claims prior to suit. 

Second, they contend that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief against any

named defendant.

“Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides:

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.

This exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).”

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9 Cir. Dec. 5, 2002). Exhaustion must precede the th

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 46 Filed 05/29/08 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

filing of the complaint; compliance with the statute is not achieved by satisfying the exhaustion

requirement during the course of an action. Id. at 1200. Claims dismissed for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies should be dismissed without prejudice. Id. 

 California’s Department of Corrections provides a four-step

grievance process for prisoners who seek review of an

administrative decision or perceived mistreatment. Within fifteen

working days of “the event or decision being appealed,” the inmate

must ordinarily file an “informal” appeal, through which “the

appellant and staff involved in the action or decision attempt to

resolve the grievance informally.” Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, §§

3084.5(a), 3084.6(c). [Footnote omitted.] If the issue is not

resolved during the informal appeal, the grievant next proceeds to

the first formal appeal level, usually conducted by the prison's

Appeals Coordinator. Id. §§ 3084.5(b), 3084.6(c). Next are the

second level, providing review by the institution's head or a

regional parole administrator, and the third level, in which review

is conducted by a designee of the Director of the Department of

Corrections. [Footnote omitted.] Id. § 3084.5(e)(1)-(2).

Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005.) Department regulations require that

(1) Informal level responses shall be completed within ten working

days.

(2) First level responses shall be completed within 30 working

days.

(3) Second level responses shall be completed within 20 working

days, or 30 working days if first level is waived pursuant to section

3084.5(a)(3).

(4) Third level responses shall be completed within 60 working

days. 

Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.6(b). The time limits for reviewing appeals starts on the date the

appeal is received by the appeals coordinator. Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.6(a).

Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Cry is based on defendant Cry’s rejection of an

inmate appeal on July 28, 2004, and alleged “repeated rejections” of plaintiff’s safety concerns

after plaintiff was sexually abused by a cellmate. Fourth Amended Complaint, at 3. Plaintiff’s

claim against defendant White is based on defendant White’s alleged failure to refer plaintiff to a

psychiatrist or to the Department of Mental Health and defendant White’s alleged failure to

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 46 Filed 05/29/08 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

prevent further harm to plaintiff after he was sexually abused by his cellmate. Plaintiff’s claim

against defendant Schwartz is based on defendant Schwartz’s failure to stop the violations of

plaintiff’s rights even when informed of plaintiff’s grievance. 

Exhibits appended to plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint show that on July 28,

2004, defendant Cry rejected an appeal filed by plaintiff on the ground that it was a duplicate of

another appeal, CMF-03-M-1984. Ex. A to Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff commenced

appeal No. 03-1984 on October 30, 2003, by submitting a grievance challenging a decision made

by several individuals, including defendant White, to remove plaintiff from the enhanced

outpatient program at California Medical Facility. Ex. C to Fourth Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that he was hearing voices, and that he had told defendant White of

instances where he had been sexually abused by a cellmate but that defendant White had failed to

protect him from further harm or abuse. Id. This appeal was accepted for review at the first

formal level of review on November 13, 2003. Declaration of M. Cry in Support of Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss, filed January 7, 2008 (Cry Declaration), at ¶ 5. It was denied at that level of

review on December 18, 2003. Ex. D to Fourth Amended Complaint, Memorandum dated

December 18, 2003. The appeal was reviewed at the second level “on behalf of” defendant

Schwartz and denied at that level of review on February 11, 2004. Ex. C to Fourth Amended

Complaint. It was denied at the third and final level of review on May 27, 2004. Cry

Declaration at ¶ 5. 

This action was filed on February 4, 2004, more than three months before the

foregoing grievance was resolved at the final level of administrative review. As noted above,

plaintiff can only raise in this action claims for which administrative remedies were exhausted

prior to the date on which this action was filed. See McKinney, supra. Plaintiff did not exhaust

administrative remedies with respect to the foregoing claims against defendants Cry, White or

Schwartz prior to suit. Those claims should therefore be dismissed without prejudice. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 46 Filed 05/29/08 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

 Exhibits appended to the fourth amended complaint show that defendant Schwartz also 2

had some involvement in the grievance filed by plaintiff against defendant Yarber. It is not clear

whether plaintiff has raised a claim against defendant Schwartz extend to this grievance but

assuming he has it too must be dismissed without prejudice. 

5

Plaintiff also claims that defendant White violated his constitutional rights by

testifying against him at a prison disciplinary hearing. Exhibits appended to plaintiff’s complaint

show that the disciplinary proceedings implicated by this claim took place on September 25,

2004, more than seven months after this action was commenced. Since that testimony was given

after initiation of this action, it plain that plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies with

respect to that claim prior to suit. This claim should therefore be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Yarber is based on events that occurred on or

after February 28, 2005. See Fourth Amended Complaint, at 4. Since those events occurred after

initiation of this action, it is plain that plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies with

respect to that claim prior to suit. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Yarber should therefore be

dismissed without prejudice.

2

For all of the foregoing reasons, this court finds that plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies prior to suit for any of the claims raised in the fourth amended

complaint. For that reason, defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted and this action

should be dismissed without prejudice.

On April 7, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended

complaint. On May 2, 2008, defendants filed an opposition to the motion contending, inter alia,

that amendment would be futile because the claims raised in the fifth amended complaint were

not administratively exhausted prior to the date this action was filed. Defendants’ contention is

well-taken. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend should be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ January 7, 2008 motion to dismiss this action be granted on the

ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit;

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 46 Filed 05/29/08 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

2. Plaintiff’s April 7, 2008 motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint be

denied; and

3. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies prior to suit.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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). 

DATED: May 27, 2008.

12

onea0260.mtd

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 46 Filed 05/29/08 Page 6 of 6