Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00403/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00403-6/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

27

28

1

Plaintiff’s complaint named other Defendants, but only three remain. 

- 1 - 04CV0403

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY T. MARSHALL,

 Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04-CV-0403-L (WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE OF FAILURE TO

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES

[Doc. Nos. 97, 115, 128, & 132]

vs.

SGT. RAIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

Plaintiff Roy Marshall, a California State prisoner proceeding without the assistance of

counsel, filed this civil rights action alleging that Correctional Officers Ms. Peterson, Mr.

Williams, and Lieutenant Cobb violated his Eighth Amendment right to medical treatment

while in state custody.1

 Defendants moved for summary judgment on their affirmative defense

that requires the prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the summary judgment motion because

Plaintiff did not pursue his grievance beyond the first of four levels of administrative review.

Plaintiff filed objections and Defendants responded. Having reviewed the complete record,

the applicable legal authorities, and the submissions of the parties, the Court overrules the

objections and adopts the recommendation to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor. 

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 133 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 6
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

The parties refer to the grievances by the date that Plaintiff typed onto the 602 forms.

There are factual disputes, however, as to the dates on which the 602 Form was handled.

Plaintiff states that he submitted each form to the prison on the dates that he signed them and

quickly returned subsequent paperwork. Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 2-7. [# 107] Because the prison uses the

same, original 602 form throughout every step of the grievance procedure, the documents that

are attached as exhibits are both signed by Plaintiff and bear the received date of February 3,

2003. The “Medical Appeal Notice Screening Form” that the Appeals Coordinator completed

on January 9, 2003 establishes that Plaintiff submitted one or both of the 602 Forms before

January 9th. Plaintiff also alleges, without supporting evidence, that the prison deliberately

delayed processing his forms.

There is also some confusion as to which 602 form (or both) was returned for Plaintiff

to sign on January 9, 2003. Initially, Plaintiff stated that “[t]he original inmate appeal dated

12-12-02 . . . was returned to him because he failed to sign the form”; however, he now states

that this was not the 602 form that was missing his signature. Compare Pl.’s Opp. [# 15, p.4]

with Pl.’s Exs. A and B to Objections [# 128, p. 42]. 

The Court can resolve the summary judgment motion without resolving these factual

issues as to the first step of the grievance procedure because it is undisputed that Plaintiff

failed to exhaust any other step in the process. 

- 2 - 04CV0403

/ / /

Factual Background on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

On December 1, 2002, Plaintiff slipped on a wet floor at Donovan Correctional Facility

and injured his back. Plaintiff asserts that prison officials deliberately ignored his serious

medical needs over the next several days. The regulations required Plaintiff to “appeal” the

adverse event within 15 working days. See Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir.

2008).

On December 12, 2002, Plaintiff dated the first of two administrative grievances at the

initial, “informal” level of the procedure by filling out Parts A and B of a 602 Form for a Staff

response.2

 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (describing steps in the California

Department of Corrections’s grievance system) (hereinafter “CDC”). 

On December 13, 2002, Plaintiff dated a second administrative grievance in which he

challenged the prison doctor’s conclusion that he could be transferred and he requested that

remain at Donovan until the completion of his MRI evaluation.

Thereafter, on December 17, 2002, Plaintiff was transferred from Donovan to another

prison. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cobb forced him to crawl onto the bus. Plaintiff

contends that officers at the new prison responded to his back injury by diagnosing him with

nerve damage, restricting him to a wheelchair, and hospitalizing him for three months.

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 133 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 - 04CV0403

Plaintiff alleges that he wrote several letters to the Appeals Coordinator at Donovan to inquire

about the status of his grievances. Pl.’s Obj. at 7.

On January 9, 2003, Donovan returned a 602 Form to Plaintiff because he had failed

to sign it. Defs.’ Ex. C. Plaintiff contends that he did not receive this document at his new

institution until the third week of January but that he “quickly” returned it to Donovan. 

On February 3, 2003, the Appeals Coordinator at Donovan date stamped both grievance

forms as being “received” and “rejected as untimely” because Plaintiff had failed to file his

appeal within 15 working days of the event. Defs.’ Exs. A, (Part C), B (Part C), and C. The

Appeals Coordinator stated in the comment section: “Mr. Marshal, why did you wait so long

to submit these appeals? The alleged incident happened on 12-1-02, you transferred on 12-17-

02 and we received your appeals on 2-3-03.” Defs.’ Ex. C. 

Part D of the 602 Form advised Plaintiff that if he was dissatisfied with the Staff

Response that he should explain his objection, attach any supporting documents, and submit

the 602 Form to the Institution/Parole Region Appeals Coordinator within 15 days of the

receipt of the response. Defs.’ Exs. A & B. In addition, the Inmate Appeals Screening Form

contained the following note: “This screening decision may not be appealed unless you allege

the above reason is inaccurate. In such a case, please return this form to the Appeals Office

with the necessary information. You have 15 days to comply.” Defs.’ Ex. C.

Plaintiff took no other step to pursue his grievance through prison channels. He did not

challenge the inaccuracy of the Staff’s decision that his grievance was untimely by either

returning the Screening Form or by submitting the 602 Forms to the next level of “formal”

review. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 85-86 (whether the informal review has been bypassed or

resolved adverse to the prisoner, the inmate may pursue a three-step review process by the

Appeals Coordinator, the warden, and the Director of CDC). Plaintiff states that “he was

uncertain as to how to proceed, but believed that there were no further administrative remedies

available.” Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 9 [# 107]. He filed this lawsuit a year later in February 2004. 

/ / /

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 133 Filed 09/29/08 Page 3 of 6
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 - 04CV0403

Discussion

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ summary judgment

motion because complete and proper exhaustion of all the prison’s internal grievance

procedures is a necessary and mandatory requirement to filing a federal lawsuit challenging

prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Woodford, 548 U.S. at 85 (citing the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995). The Magistrate Judge reports that Defendants have submitted

undisputed evidence to establish the elements of this affirmative defense because Plaintiff did

not pursue any administrative remedy upon receiving the February 3, 2003 rejection of his

appeal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); see

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S. Ct. 910, 918-19, 921 (2007).

Plaintiff raises two primary objections to the recommendation. Plaintiff first raises

questions of fact as to when Donovan actually received his 602 Forms. For example, Plaintiff

states in his declaration that he promptly submitted the December 12th form through the

institutional mail systems and he alleges the prison must have intentionally delayed processing

that form because there is no explanation for its alleged receipt weeks later on February 3rd,

particularly since he wrote letters from his new institution to ask about the status of his

grievances. See supra note 2 (concerning which 602 Form was returned for signature on

January 9th). 

The Court overrules this objection. Plaintiff’s arguments reduce to an assertion that the

prison erred on February 3, 2003 when it rejected his grievance forms as untimely. As

Defendants correctly note, however, regardless of whether Plaintiff complied with the

requirements for obtaining the “informal” level of review, it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not

challenge the February 3rd decision. He could have either returned the Screening Form or

proceeded to the next level of “formal” review. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 85-86. Plaintiff

did neither. The purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to allow the prison an opportunity

to correct its own mistakes. Id. at 89. Plaintiff should have presented his arguments

concerning the timeliness of his 602 Forms (and the related allegations that the prison delayed

his mail) to the prison before filing this lawsuit. 

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 133 Filed 09/29/08 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 - 04CV0403

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that it would have been “futile” to pursue these other

administrative procedures is not convincing. In each step of the grievance procedure, the

underlying decision is reviewed with a fresh eye by a different decision-maker, but Plaintiff’s

failure to pursue those steps deprived the prison of the opportunity to evaluate the particular

facts of his case and finally resolve whether Plaintiff complied with the time requirements. 

Similarly, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants are estopped from

raising the failure to exhaust because the prison somehow prevented him from using the

grievance procedure or that the rules “forbid” him from appealing the untimeliness decision.

The February 3, 2003 decision notified Plaintiff of two available avenues to demonstrate that

his grievance was timely submitted, but Plaintiff did not follow either procedure. Nothing in

the rules concerning “excessive” or “repetitive” filings prevented Plaintiff from seeking further

review of his December 12 and 13, 2002 grievances through the appropriate channels.

Second, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s separate recommendation that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust claims concerning Defendant Cobb because his conduct on

December 17th did not occur until after Plaintiff completed the two 602 Forms. Plaintiff

argues that Cobb’s conduct at the time of transfer was a continuation of the prison’s

misconduct to ignore his back injury. The Court overrules the objection and finds that

summary judgment is appropriate as to all three remaining Defendants. As the Magistrate

Judge correctly stated, “Plaintiff did not appeal the rejection of his 602 Forms from December

12 and 13, 2002, so there is no documentation to suggest Plaintiff somehow supplemented his

original grievances to add allegations against Lt. Cobb.” R&R at 9. 

Conclusion

Having carefully considered the parties’ briefs, the record, applicable law, and good

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections

to the Report and Recommendation [# 115 & 126], and grants Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative

remedies. [# 97] 

On a housekeeping matter, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 133 Filed 09/29/08 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 - 04CV0403

injunction in which he requests additional time to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation. [# 123] 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in Defendants’ favor and close this civil action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-00403-L-WMC Document 133 Filed 09/29/08 Page 6 of 6