Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01353-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN MATTHEW MONGER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1353 GEB DAD P

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 8, 2008, defendants Berry and Flores moved to

dismiss this action, arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior

to bringing suit and that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff has filed

an opposition to defendants’ motion. Defendants have filed a reply.

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on November 14, 2004, he sent a letter to

the California Department of Corrections Office of Internal Affairs claiming that defendant Berry

had made unwanted sexual advances towards him. Plaintiff alleges that, in retaliation for writing

this letter, on November 18, 2004, defendant Berry attempted to incite a group of inmates to

inflict violence upon him. In addition, plaintiff alleges that on the following day, defendant

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 1 of 10
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

 Counsel appears to have inadvertently mistaken a number of plaintiff’s factual

1

allegations for separate legal causes of action. In this regard, counsel unnecessarily challenges

any potential claim plaintiff may be attempting to present related to sexual harassment or verbal

harassment, the right to a particular job while incarcerated, and unsafe working conditions. 

2

Berry called him into his office and told him that he was going to be unassigned from his

culinary job. Plaintiff alleges that, on November 30, 2004, he was in fact unassigned from his

culinary job. Plaintiff claims that he received a chrono from defendant Flores stating that he had

been unassigned from his job because of a pending disciplinary infraction authored by defendant

Berry. Plaintiff contends that the information in the chrono was false because at the time it had

been generated there were no pending disciplinary infractions pending against him. 

THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

I. Defendants’ Motion

Counsel for defendants argues that this action should be dismissed because

plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims against defendants

Berry and Flores. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 3-7.) Specifically, counsel argues that plaintiff did

not file an administrative appeal regarding any alleged retaliation, so that his claim in this action

that the defendants conspired to unassign him from his kitchen job in retaliation for exercising

his First Amendment rights is barred. (Id. at 6-7; Grannis Decl. at 3-4; Cervantes Decl. at 3-4.) 

Defense counsel argues that to the extent any of plaintiff’s administrative appeals relate to a

retaliation claim, plaintiff failed to pursue them through the director’s level of review or prison

officials “screened them out” for lack of documentation. (Id. at 7; Grannis Decl. at 3-4;

Cervantes Decl. at 3-4.) 

Defendants also argue that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. (Defs.’ Mot.

to Dismiss at 3-7.) Defense counsel has not, however, directly addressed the viability of

plaintiff’s retaliation claim, which – as plaintiff clarifies in his opposition – is the sole claim

presented in this action.1

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 2 of 10
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

II. Plaintiff’s Opposition

Plaintiff has filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss clarifying

that he only seeks redress for retaliation. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 1.) 

Specifically, plaintiff argues that “his First Amendment Right to seek redress was violated when

he was retaliated against by defendants after filing a sexual harassment complaint with Internal

Affairs against C/O Berry.” (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff notes that all other references in his complaint

are to facts and do not constitute additional claims for relief. (Id.) 

Plaintiff argues that he has exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing

suit. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) In particular, he claims that in Appeal 05-

00143, he clearly stated that the defendants issued him a rules violation report and unassigned

him from his job in retaliation for his filing of a sexual harassment complaint. Plaintiff notes that

he pursued that appeal through the highest level possible. He also claims that, in Appeal 05-

00081, he clearly alleged that defendants’ actions were retaliatory in nature and were taken in

response to his filing a sexual harassment complaint against defendant Berry. Plaintiff notes that

prison officials rejected this second appeal for lack of documentation. However, plaintiff

declares that the rejection was erroneous because he attached his CDC-128-B chrono to the

appeal. (Id.) 

Plaintiff asks the court to consider that the events in this case did not occur as a

single event, but rather transpired over a period of time. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss

at 2.) Plaintiff concludes that defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied. 

III. Defendants’ Reply

In reply, counsel for defendants reiterates that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

retaliation claim in Appeals 05-00711, 04-03690, and 05-00143. (Defs.’ Reply at 4-5.) In

addition, counsel argues that plaintiff’s allegations in Appeal 05-00081 reference only removal

from his kitchen job and have nothing to do with alleged retaliation. (Id. at 2.) Moreover,

defense counsel argues that at the director’s level of review plaintiff’s Appeal 05-00081 was

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 3 of 10
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

“screened out” due to lack of required documentation. While acknowledging that plaintiff claims

that he submitted the appeal with the required documentation, counsel for defendants maintains

that none of plaintiff’s exhibits support his contention or indicate that he took any steps

whatsoever to pursue the appeal after it was “screened out” at the director’s level. Defense

counsel relies heavily on the unpublished decision in Smith v. Woodford, No. C 05-3373 SI (pr),

2007 WL 2122648 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2007). In that case at the director’s level of review an

inmate’s appeal was screened out for failure to attach a necessary document. Although the

prisoner argued in opposition to a motion to dismiss his complaint in district court that he had

resubmitted the appeal with the necessary documentation, and provided a declaration to that

effect, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss noting:

The court credits defendants’ evidence over Smith’s evidence. 

Smith’s declaration does not have attached to it a copy of any

document that would support his assertion, such as a copy of his

resubmitted appeal or a mail log showing that he mailed the

grievance on the day he says he mailed it. And he provided no

evidence that he made any further inquiry once he allegedly

resubmitted the inmate appeal to determine what had become of it.

Counsel for the defendants concludes that, as in Smith, plaintiff in this case failed to properly

exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id. at 2-3.) 

ANALYSIS

I. Legal Standards Applicable to a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Non-Enumerated Rule 12(b)

By the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), Congress amended 42

U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions

under section 1983 of this title, 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 exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about

prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they

allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 4 of 10
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

The Supreme Court has ruled that exhaustion of prison administrative procedures

is mandated regardless of the relief offered through such procedures. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741 (2001). The Court has also cautioned against reading futility or other exceptions into

the statutory exhaustion requirement. Id. at 741 n.6. Because proper exhaustion is necessary, a

prisoner cannot satisfy the PLRA exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise

procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83

(2006). 

In California, prisoners may appeal “any departmental decision, action, condition,

or policy which they can demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). Most appeals progress from an informal review through three formal

levels of review. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. A decision at the third formal level, also

referred to as the director’s level, is not appealable and will conclude a prisoner’s administrative

remedy. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1(a) and 3084.5(e)(2). A California prisoner is

required to submit an inmate appeal at the appropriate level and proceed to the highest level of

review available before filing suit. Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2005);

Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2002).

As noted above the PLRA exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional but rather

creates an affirmative defense that a defendant may raise in a non-enumerated Rule 12(b) motion. 

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, ___, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007) (“[I]nmates are not required to

specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.”); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1117-19 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). The

defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at

1119. “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. “[I]f the district court

looks beyond the pleadings to a factual record in deciding the motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust–a procedure closely analogous to summary judgment–then the court must assure that

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 5 of 10
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

 Plaintiff was notified of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss brought 2

pursuant to non-enumerated Rule 12(b) on October 25, 2007. (Order filed Oct. 25, 2007 at 3-4.)

6

[the prisoner] has fair notice of his opportunity to develop a record.” Id. at 1120 n.14. When 2

the district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies, “the

proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120. See also Lira v. Herrera,

427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1212 (2007). On the

other hand, “if a complaint contains both good and bad claims, the court proceeds with the good

and leaves the bad.” Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 924. 

II. Discussion

In this case, the court is not persuaded by defendants’ argument that plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his retaliation claim. Plaintiff

pursued three grievances through the director’s level of review (Appeals 04-03690, 05-00711,

and 05-00081) and a fourth grievance through the second level of review (Appeal 05-00143),

which was the highest level of review available for purposes of exhaustion of that grievance. 

(Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at Ex. B.) (“The Second Level of Review is considered

the department’s final action in regard to Rules Violation Reports classified as Administrative.”)

See also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (a prisoner’s obligation to exhaust

administrative remedies persists if some remedy remains available). All of plaintiff’s

administrative grievances related to his single claim that defendants engaged in ongoing

retaliation against him because he filed a sexual harassment complaint against defendant Berry. 

Plaintiff presents only that same claim in this action and therefore satisfied the PLRA’s

exhaustion requirement. 

For example, in the “Describe Problem” section of Appeal 05-00081, plaintiff

wrote:

On November the 19th, 2004 I spoke to Correctional Officer Berry

and was advised that I would be receiving a CDC 115 for failing to

perform my assigned duties. He also stated “I’m going to speak

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 6 of 10
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

 Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to properly pursue Appeal 05-00081 through the 3

director’s level of review. Although defendants have submitted declarations and other

documentation demonstrating that the director’s level of review “screened out” Appeal 05-00081

for not including form CDC 128-B, plaintiff has refuted their evidence with a declaration, signed

under penalty of perjury, stating that he submitted Appeal 05-00081 with the proper

documentation. Moreover, unlike the plaintiff in Smith, plaintiff here has also submitted a copy

of Appeal 05-00081, which appears to have the CDC-128-B form attached to it. As defendants

are well aware, section 1997e(a) provides an affirmative defense under which defendants have

the ultimate burden to raise and prove plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. In light of plaintiff’s

evidence, and defendants’ failure to persuasively rebut it in their reply, the court finds that

plaintiff pursued Appeal 05-00081 through the highest level of review available to him. See,

e.g., Brown v. Castillo, No. 1:02-6018 LKO DLB P, 2008 WL 1773833 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15,

2008) (defendants failed to carry their burden proving absence of exhaustion when prisoner

submitted declaration under penalty of perjury that he submitted a timely appeal regarding his

claim). See also Bradley v. McVay, No. 1:04-6128 AWI DLB P, 2008 WL 495732 (E.D. Cal.

Feb. 21, 2008) (“In a situation such as this in which the parties offer differing versions of events

based on competing declarations, the [exhaustion] issue is one of witness credibility and the

Court cannot make that requisite assessment on a motion to dismiss.”). In any event, as

discussed above, plaintiff also pursued other grievances with respect to his retaliation claim

through the highest level of review available to him, thus properly exhausting his administrative

remedies. 

7

with your counselor and have you unassigned from the kitchen.” 

Then on November the 30th, 2004 I was in fact unassigned by Lt.

Flores. Since Correctional Officer Berry made statements that he

was going to have me unassigned and shortly thereafter I was,

[I’]m alleging that Correctional Officer Berry conspired with

correctional Lt. Flores and followed through on his threats. 

Plaintiff argued in his administrative appeal that removing him from his job assignment without

adjudication through established disciplinary procedures violated his constitutional rights. He

further argued that correctional officers acted unlawfully when they “willfully and with deliberate

action” violate disciplinary procedures to exact their own form of retribution on a prisoner.

3

(Cervantes Decl. Ex. D.) 

Less than two months later, in the “Describe Problem” section of Appeal 05-

00143, plaintiff wrote:

On December 17, 2004[,] I was issued a CDC 115, Administrative,

for theft of state food. First, the time constraints were not met in

accordance with CCR Title 15, section 3320(a). The initial RVR

was not issued until twenty-nine days after the alleged incident. 

Since this writer is a life term prisoner and he has a vested interest

at his parole hearings the CDC 115 should be time barred. 

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 7 of 10
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

8

Especially, when the CDC 115s are used to deny parole. The

above cited section states that a prisoner may not lose time if the

constraints are not met, but this writer will lose time in the future

as a direct rules of this RVR. 

Although plaintiff did not expressly raise a retaliation claim in his initial appeal, plaintiff

explained to prison authorities during his personal interview that he believed defendant Berry

issued the rules violation charge against him as a form of retaliation. In Warden Carey’s second

level response to plaintiff’s appeal, he acknowledged:

You also stated that you believe this RVR was written as a

retaliatory action from previous confrontations with CO Berry. 

You stated that you believe CO Berry wrote the RVR and had you

removed from your job as a culinary worker after you filed an

appeal against him for sexual harassment.

(Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at Ex. A). Thus, contrary to defense counsel’s arguments,

plaintiff expressly informed prison authorities of his claim that the defendants retaliated against

him for filing a sexual harassment complaint. 

Plaintiff also specifically described the type of retaliatory actions defendant Berry

allegedly engaged in on a number of occasions. For example, in the “Describe Problem” section

of Appeal 04-03690, plaintiff wrote:

On November 18, 2004, I was accused by C/O Berry of stealing

lunches out of the Kosher food cart. My position is that I was not

stealing and that the whole incident was a misunderstanding, but

my innocence will be determined by a disciplinary officer, if in fact

a CDC 115 is issued. The foregoing is not the main theme of this

grievance, my utilization of this inmate appeals process is to seek

redress from the alleged misconduct of a CDC employee. 

Specifically, Officer Berry. 

Immediately after the above incident had occurred officer Berry

harassed inmates assigned the the [sic] facility three culinary

department, including using searches at the conclusion of the work

day to incite and inflame other inmates against this writer. Officer

Berry continued his behavior for three days. And when officer

Berry would harass these inmates, including this writer, he would

make statements like “If you don’t like this shit, go see Monger.”

Officer Berry even went as far as showing inmates my

identification card when inmates would ask who inmate Monger

was. At one point he even went into the chow hall and yelled at

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 8 of 10
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

9

numerous inmates (25-30) and told them they would pay for my

misunderstanding and that if they had a problem with what was

going to happen to them, then go and see Monger. . . .

Plaintiff argued that defendant Berry’s improper actions could have led to violence within the

correctional setting. In addition, as plaintiff pursued his grievance to the highest level of review,

he argued that prison officials were engaged in a cover up of the incident. (Cervantes Decl. Ex.

C.)

Finally, plaintiff attempted to expose and appeal the alleged retaliatory motive

behind defendants’ decision to remove him from his culinary assignment. In the “Describe

Problem” section of Appeal 05-00711, plaintiff wrote:

On March 1, 2005, I appeared before the Unit Classification

Committee for consideration of a major adverse program change. 

As of today’s date, I still have not received a copy of my California

Department of Corrections . . . form 128G, describing what actions

were taken by the committee and the reasons why the actions were

necessary. Not providing this inmate with a copy of his CDC

128G is a violation of the California Code of Regulations . . . Title

15 sections 3375 (g) and (h). . . . 

Plaintiff also argued that prison officials’ failure to provide him with a copy of CDC 128G

prevented him from filing an appeal regarding the Committee’s actions. (Grannis Decl. Ex. C.)

Based on this record, the court finds that plaintiff exhausted his administrative

remedies with respect to his claim that defendants retaliated against because he filed a sexual

harassment complaint against defendant Berry. Because prison authorities were put on notice of

plaintiff’s retaliation claim and acknowledged and attempted to address it, defendants cannot

now argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust it. As noted above, defendants bear the burden of

raising and proving the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Jones,

127 S. Ct. at 921; Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1117-19 & nn.9 & 13. Defendants Berry and Flores have

not carried that burden in this instance and, therefore, their motion to dismiss should be denied.

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 9 of 10
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

10

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

defendants’ February 8, 2008 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18) be denied.

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 fifteen

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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: August 15, 2008.

DAD:9

mong1353.57 

Case 2:07-cv-01353-RLH-VPC Document 30 Filed 08/18/08 Page 10 of 10