Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01947/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01947-1/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 

John Garcia,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 03-1947 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Mule Creek State Prison, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking

redress for alleged violation of his federal civil rights

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff claims defendants delayed in diagnosing and

treating his diseased eye, resulting in surgical removal of the

eye, in violation of plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care

under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges defendant Dr. Wong

at Salinas Valley State Prison and defendant Dr. Smith at Mule

Creek State Prison each misdiagnosed plaintiff’s condition as

Case 2:03-cv-01947-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 5
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

pink eye, each thus causing several months’ delay in proper

treatment. 

Defendants Smith and Wong move to dismiss the complaint on

the ground plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies

against defendant Wong.

Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code

provides 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). A prisoner need not plead exhaustion. 

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). Ordinarily,

defendants must raise and prove absence of exhaustion as a

defense raised by a motion to dismiss. Id. “Courts considering

‘nonenumerated’ Rule 12(b) motions on the issue of administrative

exhaustion may not only rely on matters outside the pleadings but

also have broad discretion to resolve any factual disputes.” 

Irvin v. Zamora, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1128 (S.D. Cal. 2001)

(citing Ritza v. Internat’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s

Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988)).

“[F]ew courts have addressed the specificity required for

claims raised in the prison administrative grievance process” to

satisfy section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirements. Irvin v.

Zamora, 161 F. Supp. 2d at 1129.

Case 2:03-cv-01947-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 5
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

When the administrative rulebook is silent, a grievance

suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the

wrong for which redress is sought. As in a noticepleading system, the grievant need not lay out the

facts, articulate legal theories, or demand particular

relief. All the grievance need do is object

intelligibly to some asserted shortcoming.

Strong v. Davis, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002); see also

Gomez v. Winslow, 177 S. Supp. 2d 977, 982 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

(purpose of exhaustion is to provide prison officials notice of

complaints so they can take proper action). 

In assessing exhaustion, a court should consider whether a

reasonable investigation of the administrative claim would have

uncovered the allegations of the civil rights complaint. Gomez

v. Winslow, 177 F. Supp. 2d at 983.; Irvin, 161 F. Supp. 2d at

1134-35; Sulton v. Wright, 265 F. Supp. 2d 292, 298 (S.D. N.Y.

2003) (citing Title VII rule that exhaustion is satisfied if

charges in administrative complaint were “like or reasonably

related to” federal claims, such that investigation of the

administrative complaint would have revealed facts supporting

civil rights complaint), abrogated on other grounds as noted in

Scott v. Gardner, 287 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D. N.Y. 2003); Torrence

v. Pelkey, 164 F. Supp. 2d 264, 278-79 (D. Conn. 2001) (declining

to require exhaustion of new issues in medical care that arose

from the “same series of events” that had already been

exhausted); see also Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 630 (9th Cir.

2005) (PLRA exhaustion requirement resembles administrative

exhaustion). 

The California Department of Corrections’ administrative

Case 2:03-cv-01947-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 05/31/05 Page 3 of 5
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

grievance procedure is set forth in Title 15 of the California

Administrative Code at sections 3084.1, et seq. California

prisoners or parolees may appeal “any departmental decision,

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

an adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 CAC § 3084.1(a). The

regulatory system does not dictate the content of the grievance. 

15 CAC § 3084.2. The first level of formal appeal must be

decided within 30 working days by someone not involved in the

dispute or grievance, who is at least equal in rank to the

highest ranking person that was involved. 15 CAC § 3084.5(e). 

Ordinarily, a grievance must be taken to a second- and thirdlevel appeal before exhaustion is complete. Id. 

It is uncontested that plaintiff filed, and pursued to the

third level, a grievance claiming both Wong and Smith provided

deficient medical care, resulting in the loss of his eye. 

Plaintiff submitted the grievance at Mule Creek State Prison and

officials addressed it but took the position that plaintiff had

to file a separate grievance at Salinas Valley State Prison as to

Dr. Wong. 

The court finds that all claims arising from the ongoing

course of treatment for plaintiff’s single medical problem were

within the scope of his grievance. See Gomez v. Winslow, 177 F.

Supp. 2d 977; Sulton v. Wright, 265 F. Supp. 2d 292; Brown v.

Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2000); Clement v. California

Department of Corrections, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2002);

Torrence v. Pelkey, 164 F. Supp. 2d 264. The prison

Case 2:03-cv-01947-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 05/31/05 Page 4 of 5
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

administration had the opportunity to consider claims against

Wong in addition to Smith, although it may have chosen not to.

Plaintiff’s claims are exhausted. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends the November 15,

2004, motion to dismiss be denied.

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. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. 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: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01947-MCE -PAN Document 66 Filed 05/31/05 Page 5 of 5