Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06290/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06290-22/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

 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on October 20, 2004. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 18.) Although plaintiff

states in his opposition that it is impossible to respond to defendant’s motion within eighteen days, Local Rule 78-

230(m), plaintiff in fact opposed the motion and did not seek an extension of time or any other relief concerning his

obligation to respond. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MAURICE GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06290-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LUNA’S

MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIM

AGAINST HER BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING

SUIT

(Doc. 106)

I. Defendant Luna’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff David Maurice Gomez (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed October 21, 2003, against defendants Saddi, Bailey, and German on plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, and against defendant Luna on plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment medical care claim. 

On November 29, 2006, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendant Luna

filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. (Doc. 106.)

Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 22, 2006. (Doc. 113.) 1

Case 1:03-cv-06290-DLB Document 115 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

B. Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative

process, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the

process, as long as the administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated.

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement applies

to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and exhaustion

must occur prior to filing suit, McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative

defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.

Jones v. Bock, Nos. 05-7058, 05-7142, 2007 WL 135890, *11 (Jan. 22, 2007) (citing Porter, 435

U.S. at 524); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The failure to exhaust

nonjudicial administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject to an unenumerated Rule

12(b) motion, rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza v. Int’l

Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curium)). In

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court

concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

C. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2006). The process is initiated by submitting

a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal

level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s

Level.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being

appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some

Case 1:03-cv-06290-DLB Document 115 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 4
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 This action was filed on September 22, 2003, and plaintiff’s complaint bears the date September 9, 2003. 

2

(Doc. 1.)

3

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). In order to satisfy section

1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to

filing suit. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at 2383; McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

Defendant Luna argues that she is entitled to dismissal of the claim against her because

plaintiff’s inmate appeal did not grieve the claim against her and because plaintiff did not exhaust

prior to filing suit. In support of her motion, defendant submits evidence that plaintiff’s inmate

appeal was not exhausted until March 19, 2004, when it was denied at the third and final level of

review. (Doc. 106, Exhibits A-D.)

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that he did exhaust. (Doc. 113, 2:14-15.) Plaintiff

contends that his appeal set forth the misconduct of defendant Luna and that he alleged in his

complaint that the appeal was missing past the deadline for a response from prison officials. (Id.,

2:17-21 & 3:26-28.)

The Court rejects defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s inmate appeal was insufficient to

exhaust the claim against her. In the appeal, plaintiff set forth the conduct giving rise to the claim

in this action and asserted that he was not provided with proper medical care. (Exhibit D., pg. 4.)

This was sufficient to place prison officials on notice as to the conduct giving rise to the claim

against defendant Luna in this suit.

“[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought

in court.” Jones, 2007 WL 135890 at 8 (citing Porter, 435 U.S. at 524). In this instance, plaintiff’s

appeal, dated June 28, 2003, was mailed to the institution on July 8, 2003, received on July 11, 2003,

and assigned to an appeals coordinator on July 17, 2003. (Doc. 106, Ex. A, pgs. 2 & 14; Doc. 4,

Amend. Comp., Ex. D.) Pursuant to the applicable regulation, the response was due thirty working

days later, on August 28, 2003. Tit. 15, § 3084.6. However, the appeal was not returned to plaintiff

until October 1, 2003. Although the response was late, the documentary evidence submitted by

defendant indicates that plaintiff was interviewed regarding his appeal on September 8, 2003. Thus,

at the time plaintiff filed this action, he was aware that his appeal was being processed. Plaintiff 2

Case 1:03-cv-06290-DLB Document 115 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

may not simply decide that the appeals process is moving too slowly and file suit. “All ‘available’

remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards, nor must they be

‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5).

Because plaintiff was aware at the time he filed suit that his appeal was working its way through the

appeals process, the Court finds that plaintiff filed suit prematurely and the claim against defendant

Luna must be dismissed as a result. 

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Luna’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed November 29, 2006,

is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Luna is dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a), without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06290-DLB Document 115 Filed 02/06/07 Page 4 of 4