Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01590/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01590-0/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

Troy L. Nevels,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 03-1590 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Cheryl Pliler, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel on a 

claim that defendant John Mahew was deliberately indifferent to a

dangerous condition of plaintiff’s prison confinement. Defendant

moves to dismiss upon the grounds plaintiff fails to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted and failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed no

opposition.

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 

Case 2:03-cv-01590-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 06/08/05 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

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).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must

allege an identified person deprived plaintiff of a right secured

to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48-49 (1988). To state a claim that the conditions of

confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff

must allege facts showing that prison officers were deliberately

indifferent to the need to provide “the minimal civilized measure

of life’s necessities,” or posing risk of a harm “that is not one

today’s society chooses to tolerate.” Helling v. McKinney, 509

U.S. 25, 36 (1993); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03

(1991); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981). A prison

official is deliberately indifferent if he knows of and

disregards an intolerable risk to inmate health or safety. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “The official must

Case 2:03-cv-01590-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 06/08/05 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

both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also

draw the inference.” Ibid. 

Plaintiff alleges that December 10, 2002, he fell in a

flooded shower defendant Mayhew was responsible for maintaining. 

Plaintiff attached an administrative appeal alleging he fell when

“a lot of soapy water pooled on the shower floor,” and “[b]ecause

the floor was not properly installed, the water doesn’t drain. 

Which [sic] often results in that area of the tier flooding.” 

Plaintiff also attached a fellow prisoner’s declaration that the

fellow prisoner notified staff the shower flooded December 8, 9

and 10, 2002. 

Defendant contends plaintiff’s allegations are similar to

the facts of Davidson v. Canon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986), in which the

United States Supreme Court held that evidence a prison official

took no action to protect a prisoner who expressed fear of attack

by another prisoner because the official did not consider the

situation serious and evidence a guard forgot to take action on

the alleged threat established no more than negligence. 

But accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing

all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, defendant Mayhew

knew the shower flooded regularly but took no action to protect

prisoners against the obvious risk of harm. 

I therefore find plaintiff states a claim.

Defendant contends plaintiff failed to exhaust available

administrative remedies.

Case 2:03-cv-01590-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 06/08/05 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

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). 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

litigant 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). 

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 forms

but contains no guidelines for grievance content. 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 Modification or

Accommodation Request). Prisoners ordinarily must present their

allegations on one informal and three formal levels of review. 

Case 2:03-cv-01590-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 06/08/05 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

15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.5. While presentation on the third

level, the Director’s Level of Review, exhausts the remedy for

departmental purposes, 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.1(a),

inability to present allegations on any subsequent level exhausts

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.

December 11, 2002, plaintiff submitted an appeal alleging,

On 12-10-02, I was using the upstairs shower in csection when a lot of soapy water pooled on the floor

and caused me to slip and fall in the shower. Because

the floor was not properly installed, the water doesn’t

drain. Which [sic] often results in that area of the

tier flooding. After the fall I was unable to get up

due to injuring my back. In the ER, I was given a shot

and prescribed pain medication.

Plaintiff requested compensation for “present and future pain and

suffering” and requested the shower floor be repaired.

The appeals coordinator returned the appeal December 13,

2002, directing plaintiff to attach the medical report, a

specific form, and asking, “What type of appeal is this? Do you

want the shower fixed. [sic] Compensation is not part of the

appeals process.”

December 22, 2002, plaintiff resubmitted his appeal, writing

in section “D,”

I requested the 7219 (form) from medical records but my

request was ignored. Since then I was seen in the E.R.

again on 12-17-02 and 12-19-02 due to my back going

out. On 12-19-02 I was admitted to the infirmary. 

Please disregard my request for compensation. 

Plaintiff also wrote, “Yes, I want the shower fixed.”

Case 2:03-cv-01590-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 06/08/05 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

December 24, 2002, the appeals coordinator returned

plaintiff’s appeal stating, “Write in A&B Section Only.”

December 27, 2002, plaintiff submitted an appeal on a new

form alleging,

On 12-10-02, I was using the upstairs shower in Csection when a lot of soapy water pooled on the floor

and caused me to slip and fall in the shower. Because

the floor was not properly installed, the water doesn’t

drain. Which often results in that area of the tier

flooding. After the fall I was unable to get up due to

injuring my back. In the ER, I was given a shot for

pain and prescribed pain medication.

Plaintiff requested “the shower floor to be repaired as soon as

possible.”

The January 9, 2003, response granted the appeal, notifying

plaintiff the problem would be investigated and informing

plaintiff could appeal to the first formal level of review if he

was dissatisfied. Plaintiff did not appeal.

Defendant contends that since plaintiff did not pursue his

appeal to the Director’s Level of Review he has failed to

exhaust.

Prison staff granted plaintiff’s appeal and advised him he

could appeal if he was dissatisfied. Insofar as plaintiff was

dissatisfied because he wanted damages, the appeals coordinator

informed him he could not obtain such relief in the appeals

process. Defendant fails to identify any remedy that remained

available to plaintiff. See Ngo. Plaintiff could not obtain

relief on any subsequent level of review.

Defendant asserts plaintiff should have identified defendant

Case 2:03-cv-01590-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 06/08/05 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

Mayhew in the administrative appeal. A prisoner’s appeal

suffices if the prisoner completes the form provided by prison

officials. Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Plaintiff explained his problem and requested action on the forms

provided which did not require he identify any specific person. 

For these reasons, I find plaintiff exhausted the remedy

available through the California Department of Corrections. 

Defendant’s November 24, 2004, motion to dismiss should be

denied and defendant should be given 30 days to answer the

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: June 7, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01590-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 06/08/05 Page 7 of 7