Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00546/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00546-5/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

 

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Andre Ramon Craver,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 05-0546 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

M. Norgaard, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner without counsel who claims that (1)

defendant Norgaard violated his federal constitutional rights by

placing him on lock-down thereby denying plaintiff canteen,

telephone and employment privileges and access to the courts; (2)

defendant Norgaard violated his rights by denying plaintiff’s

administrative grievance; (3) defendant Roche violated

plaintiff’s rights by refusing to transfer plaintiff to a warmer

climate to accommodate plaintiff’s arthritis. Defendants move to 

dismiss upon the ground plaintiff failed to exhaust available 

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 7
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

administrative remedies and fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted as to defendant Norgaard. 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that a prisoner may bring no §

1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative 

remedies as are available. The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The administrative remedy

must be exhausted before suit is brought and a prisoner is not

entitled to a stay of judicial proceedings in order to exhaust.

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002). Where a

prisoner requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis, suit

commences when the request is granted. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1) (court may “authorize commencement” of suit without

prepayment of filing fee for person demonstrating inability to

pay). On a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies the court may look beyond the pleadings

and decide disputed facts. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th

Cir. 2002).

California prisoners may appeal “any departmental decision,

action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having

an adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 Cal. Admin. Code 

§ 3084.1(a). The regulations require the use of specific form

that requires the prisoner “describe problem” and state “action

requested.” 15 Cal. Admin. Code §§ 3084.2, 3085 (designating use

of CDC Form 602 Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form for all grievances

except those related to disabilities under the Americans with

Disabilities Act, which are filed on CDC Form 1824, Reasonable

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 7
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

Modification or Accommodation Request). Prisoners ordinarily

must present their allegations at one informal and three formal

levels of review. 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.5. While

presentation upon the third level by the Director exhausts the

remedy for departmental purposes, 15 Cal. Admin. Code §

3084.1(a), when prisoners cannot present their allegations on any

subsequent level, they have exhausted available remedies for

purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620

(9th Cir. 2005). Defendant has the burden of identifying the

remedies that remain available. Ibid. The Ninth Circuit has

explained that a California prisoner who correctly completes an

appeal form provided by prison officials provides information

adequate to exhaust the administrative remedy for claims arising

under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Butler v. Adams, 397

F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005) (error to dismiss complaint for failure

to identify defendants in administrative form because the form

provided by the prison did not require such identification).

Defendants asserts plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies until after beginning this action. April

21, 2005, plaintiff’s appeal about being placed on lockdown was

denied at the director’s level. April 26, 2005, plaintiff’s

claim he should be transferred to a different prison was denied

at the director’s level of review. This action commenced June

21, 2005, when the court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed

in forma pauperis.

I find plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 7
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

for these claims before he commenced this action.

Defendant Roche concedes plaintiff filed a grievance about

pain caused by arthritis but asserts plaintiff did not exhaust

his administrative remedies because plaintiff placed the blame

elsewhere. But defendant Roche does not show that plaintiff

improperly completed the form required to present his grievance

which required only that he “describe problem” and not that he

identify the person ultimately responsible for causing it or the

person capable of remedying it. 

I find plaintiff exhausted his claim caused by arthritis.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

the court must accept plaintiff’s allegations as true, read the

complaint most favorably to plaintiff, give plaintiff the benefit

of every reasonable inference that appears from the pleading and

argument of the case and dismiss the complaint only if it is

clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that

could be proved consistent with the allegations. Wheeldin v.

Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 658 (1963); Retail Clerks International

Association, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746,

754 n.6 (1963); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984). The court may consider documents attached to the

complaint in evaluating a motion to dismiss. Parks School of

Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).

Defendant Norgaard asserts plaintiff fails to state a claim

that plaintiff was denied access to the courts. To state such a

claim, plaintiff must allege that defendant refused to assist

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 4 of 7
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

plaintiff prepare and file a habeas corpus petition or section

1983 complaint either by denying meaningful access to an adequate

law library or assistance from persons trained in the law and

that the deprivation caused a specific, actual injury to

plaintiff’s habeas or section 1983 litigation efforts. Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). 

The complaint alleges plaintiff was denied the right to

represent himself while he was on lock-down. But plaintiff

alleges no injury, viz., the dismissal of or inability to file a

civil rights complaint or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

I find plaintiff fails to state a claim that Norgaard

violated plaintiff’s federal constittional right of access to the

courts.

Defendant Norgaard contends that plaintiff’s allegations

that placing plaintiff on lockdown with concomitant restrictions

of plaintiff’s privileges to make canteen purchases, use a

telephone, exercise out of doors, and pursue employment violated

plaintiff’s right to due process. 

To state a claim for the deprivation of procedural due

process, plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a liberty

interest, which may arise independently under the due process

clause or as freedom from state deprivation or restraint imposing

“atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to

the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Connor, 515

U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). Prisoners have no liberty interest in

their classification status, Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 87 

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 5 of 7
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

fn.9 (1976); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir.

1987), or in being free from prison officials’ imposition of a

lockdown. Hayward v. Procunier, 629 F.2d 599, 601-603 (9th Cir.

1980). 

The complaint alleges that when plaintiff was transferred to

High Desert State Prison, blacks and whites were on lockdown

because of recent rioting and since he had a poor disciplinary

history he also was locked down. Plaintiff identifies no

protected liberty interest. Prisoners have no liberty interest

in their classification status, Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 87 

fn.9 (1976); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir.

1987), or in being free from prison officials’ imposition of a

lockdown. Hayward v. Procunier, 629 F.2d 599, 601-603 (9th Cir.

1980).

Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a claim that defendant

Norgaard violated his right to due process.

Defendant Norgaard contends plaintiff fails to state a claim

Norgaard violated due process by reviewing plaintiff’s grievance

about being placed on lockdown. Plaintiff fails to state a claim

because prisoners have no “legitimate claim of entitlement to a

[prison] grievance procedure." Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988). 

For the reasons stated the court should grant defendant

Norgaard’s November 7, 2005, motion to dismiss and dismiss claims

against defendant Norgaard and should deny defendant Roche’s

motion to dismiss and give defendant Roche 30 days to answer the

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

complaint.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States 

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: December 13, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 7 of 7