Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00388-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NYLES LAWAYNE WATSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0388 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the motion to dismiss filed September 6, 2005, on

behalf of defendant Johns for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. After carefully

reviewing the record, the court recommends that defendant’s motion be granted.

On August 15, 2005, the court granted and denied in part a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies made on behalf of the other defendants. 

Discussion

This action is proceeding on the second amended complaint filed September 2,

2004. The only claim against defendant Johns is that he retaliated against plaintiff for filing

administrative grievances by having him placed in administrative segregation. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00388-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 01/13/06 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

2

Although plaintiff alleges that he is an “ADA” inmate, it is clear that his claims

are for violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that, “[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.” In order for California prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies, they must

proceed through several levels of appeal: 1) informal resolution, 2) formal written appeal on a

CDC 602 inmate appeal form, 3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and 

4) third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Barry v.

Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A

final decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Id. at

1237-38.

In Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001) the Supreme Court held that inmates

must exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures. 121 S. Ct. at 1825. Therefore, inmates seeking money damages must completely

exhaust their administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are

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

Plaintiff contends that he attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies against

defendant Johns in administrative appeal no. 04-1289, but that N. Grannis, the Chief of the

Inmate Appeals Branch refused to process this appeal. This appeal concerned plaintiff’s

placement in administrative segregation. Amended Complaint, Exhibit B. N. Grannis returned

this appeal to plaintiff because it was missing supporting documentation including the Institution

Classification Committee Chrono, the Classification Staff Representative Chrono and the final

signed copy of the 114-D. Amended Complaint, Exhibit B.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00388-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 01/13/06 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

 (Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 1

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126

(1981). 

 On August 15, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claim that other defendants 2

retaliated against him by ordering him placed in administrative segregation for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies on the same grounds discussed in these findings and recommendations. 

3

Plaintiff later submitted another administrative appeal alleging that his ad seg

placement was retaliatory. This appeal, no. 04-2185, was denied at the third level of review on

December 17, 2004. See Defendants’ January 28, 2005, motion to dismiss, Grannis decl., ¶ 4. 

1

The court first considers whether the dismissal of appeal no. 04-1289 at the third

level for being incomplete satisfied the exhaustion requirement. In Ngo v. Woodford, 402 F.3d

620 (9th Cir. 2005) the Ninth Circuit held that an administrative appeal denied as untimely

satisfied the exhaustion requirement. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that because no further

remedies remained available after the appeal was denied as untimely, the plaintiff had exhausted

his remedies. 402 F.3d at 629-630.

In the instant case, plaintiff had further remedies available to him after N. Grannis

returned appeal no. 04-1289 for being incomplete. In the letter to plaintiff, N. Grannis listed the

documents plaintiff failed to include in his appeal. Plaintiff later filed appeal no. 04-2185 which

raised the issue of his placement in ad seg. Because additional remedies were available to 

plaintiff after the return of appeal no. 04-1289, the court finds that this appeal did not exhaust

plaintiff’s administrative remedies.

Appeal no. 04-2185 was denied at the third level of appeal on December 17,

2004—after plaintiff filed this action on February 25, 2004. Because plaintiff did not exhaust

this claim prior to filing this action, this claim should be dismissed. McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to bringing action).

For the reasons discussed above, the court recommends that defendant’s motion to

dismiss be granted.2

Case 2:04-cv-00388-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 01/13/06 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

4

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the motion to dismiss filed September 6,

2005, on behalf of defendants Johns be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 1/13/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

wat388.mtd(2)

Case 2:04-cv-00388-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 01/13/06 Page 4 of 4