Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00096/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00096-2/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 - 07cv0096

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ARIAS, JR.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0096 JM(CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND

REJECTING IN PART REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION RE:

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM; GRANTING LEAVE TO

AMEND

vs.

 D.W. BELL, et al.

Defendants.

On February 12, 2008 Magistrate Judge Cathy Bencivengo entered a Report and

Recommendation to Grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint for Failure

to Exhaust Administrative Remedies or in the Alternative to Dismiss Certain Causes of Action as to

Certain Defendants for Failure to State a Claim (“R & R”). Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate’s

finding that he failed (1) to exhaust his administrative remedies and (2) to state a claim under 42

U.S.C. §1983.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

At issue are the administrative exhaustion of two Form 602 appeals. In his Objections,

Plaintiff clarifies that reasons one, two, and three, (R&R at p.8:2-20), apply to the Form 602 relating

to allegations that Defendants knew of the assault before it occurred. Petitioner identifies reasons four

and five, (R&R at p.9:1-11), to excuse his failure to exhaust the second Form 602 that relates to his

claims for inadequate medical care. (Objections at pp.1:6-12:11).

Case 3:07-cv-00096-JM-CAB Document 49 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 The court notes that the Objections raised by Petitioner on the medical care claim have been

thoroughly addressed in the R & R. Rather than address the arguments a second time, the court adopts

the reasoning set forth in the R & R.

- 2 - 07cv0096

With respect to the Form 602 related to the assault, the court adopts the reasoning identified

in the R&R for proffered reasons one and three. However, with respect to Petitioner’s argument that

D.W. Bell told him to “send it [the appeal] to Sacramento [third level review] now,” FAC ¶23), the

court declines to adopt the R&R. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion appropriately goes

beyond the pleadings and seeks a factual determination of this issue. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the court concludes that the record is not sufficiently

developed for the court to make an informed decision. While the reasons articulated in the R & R

provide substantial support for discounting Plaintiff’s claim that he was mislead by D.W. Bell’s

alleged misrepresentation, R & R at p.8:9-15, the court notes that D.W. Bell did not submit a

declaration addressing the issue. As D.W. Bell clearly and unequivocally possesses pertinent

information concerning the alleged misrepresentation, the failure to submit a declaration addressing

the alleged misrepresentation constitutes the failure of Defendants to substantiate this affirmative

defense. The submission of a declaration from D.W. Bell is indispensable to making an informed

factual determination on the exhaustion issue raised by Defendants. 

As D.W. Bell possesses pertinent evidence on the issue of whether Plaintiff was affirmatively

misled by him, it is incumbent on Defendants to present a declaration on this point. This is true

regardless of whether D.W. Bell has any recollection of the event, affirms Plaintiff’s version of events,

or presents a contrary version of events. Accordingly, the court declines to adopt the R & R with

respect to the Form 602 related to the assault. 

In sum, the court adopts the R & R to the extent Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies with respect to claims of inadequate medical care.1

 Claims arising within the scope of this

Form 602 are dismissed without prejudice. With respect to the Form 602 related to the assault claims,

the court declines to adopt the R & R for the above stated reasons. This portion of Defendants’ motion

is denied without prejudice. In the event Defendants desire to make a further evidentiary showing on

this issue, they are instructed to contact the chambers of the undersigned to obtain a hearing date. 

The Motion to Dismiss

Case 3:07-cv-00096-JM-CAB Document 49 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 07cv0096

In his Objections, Plaintiff sets forth essentially the same arguments considered and addressed

in the R & R. Instead of responding to these arguments a second time, the court adopts the R & R in

its entirety. Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to amend from the date of entry of this order to file a

Second Amendment Complaint. Leave to amend is limited to (1) the Eighth Amendment failure to

protect claim against Defendants Scribner and Newman, and (2) the First Amendment claim for

retaliation.

In sum, the court adopts in part and rejects in part the R & R. The court dismisses all claims

related to allegations of inadequate medical care without prejudice and without leave to amend for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court dismisses all claims for failure to state a claim

except the (1) the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Scribner and

Newman and (2) the First Amendment claim for retaliation. Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to

amend from the date of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 23, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-00096-JM-CAB Document 49 Filed 09/23/08 Page 3 of 3