Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01624-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 This opposition was also filed on February 1, 2007. (Doc. # 57). 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DANIEL PERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01624 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS BE DENIED

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 33)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Robert Daniel Perry (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed January 17, 2006, against defendants Aguirre, Ruiz, Moore,

Smith, Beer, Warren, Warner, German, and Hernandez, for use of excessive physical force in

violation of the Eighth Amendment which allegedly occurred on June 28, and 29, 2005, and July 

6, 9, and 13, 2005. On December 29, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 18,

2007. Defendants filed a reply on January 29, 2007. 1

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 are required to exhaust the available

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 82 Filed 08/20/07 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

27

28

2

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life,

Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (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, 127 S.Ct. at 921; 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 (2007). The process isinitiated 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

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 v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal because plaintiff failed to exhaust the

inmate appeals process. In support of their motion, defendants submit evidence that plaintiff had

filed first level appeals for two cases: 1) Appeal Log. No. 053285, for alleged incidents that occurred

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 82 Filed 08/20/07 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

27

28

 Plaintiff’s opposition was a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. (Docs. #53 & 57). 2

‘ Plaintiff’s verified complaint constitutes an opposing affidavit. 

3 Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 948, 759-60

(9th Cir. 2006); See also, Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F. 3d 1393, 1399-1400 (9 Cir. 1998) th (Plaintiff’s verified

complaint and verified opposition may be used as opposing affidavits to the extent they are based on facts within

plaintiff’s personal knowledge.

3

on June 28, and June 29, 2005, and 2) Appeal Log. No. 053275, for incidents that occurred on July

6, 9, and 13, 2005. (Doc. 33, Castillo Dec. ¶6, & 7; Grannis Dec. ¶5.) Defendants contend that the

first appeal, Log # 053285 was cancelled on August 18, 2005, because the plaintiff refused an

interview. Despite plaintiff’s refusal for an interview, a fact-finding investigation was conducted

which concluded that plaintiff’s allegations were unfounded. Similarly, plaintiff’s Appeal Log #

053275 was denied on October 19, 2005, and plaintiff did not file an appeal at the second level of

review. 

In his opposition, plaintiff contends that he observed the defendants throwing away his appeal

forms in July, August, September, and October 2005. (Doc. 53 pg. 1-2). Plaintiff claims that the 2

defendants would not allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies because the defendants’

careers would be ruined if the appeals were filed. Id. Similarly, in the amended complaint, plaintiff

also asserts that he had sent out at least fifteen 602 Forms and made attempts to file an appeal at all

three levels, but prison officials threw out his appeal forms. (Doc. 10, pg. 2). 3

In response to Plaintiff’s opposition, Defendants contend that plaintiff’s appeal forms were

not thrown away since all appeals are placed in a locked box and security and escort officers as well

as building sergeants are the only individuals who have access to the container. (Doc. 54, Castillo

Dec. ¶4, & 5). The building Sergeant collects the box and logs all of the appeals. Id. Defendants

Warren, Moore, Beer, and Smith also filed declarations stating that they neither received nor

destroyed appeals submitted by the plaintiff. (Doc. # 57, Ex. B ,C ,D, & E).

The court is mindful that “[Proper] exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary,” 

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006), and “[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance

with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . ,” Id. at 2386. On the other

hand, the court also acknowledges that the failure to respond to a properly filed grievance may

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 82 Filed 08/20/07 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

27

28

4

result in a finding that exhaustion occurred. Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 673-74 (2d Cir.2004)

(holding that an inmate's reasonable interpretation of prison regulations justified his failure to

exhaust when he raised allegations of retaliatory staff misconduct as a defense in disciplinary

proceedings brought against him, rather than affirmatively pursuing the independent grievance

system); Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002) (when prison officials fail to

respond, the remedy becomes unavailable, and exhaustion occurs); see also, Brown v. Valoff, 422

F.3d 926, 943 n.18 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Similarly, the PLRA does not require exhaustion of all remedies, rather it requires

exhaustion of such administrative remedies “as are available.” 42 U.S.C § 1997(e)(a). If

plaintiff’s allegations that prison officials destroyed his appeal forms are true, then the prison did

not make the administrative appeal process “available to” the plaintiff. See, Brown v. Croak, 312

F. 3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2002) (formal grievance procedure not available where prison officials

told prisoner to wait for termination of investigation before filing formal grievance and then never

informed prisoner of termination of investigation) ; See also, Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F. 3d 523, 529

(3d Cir. 2003) (recognizing that a remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not

an available remedy); Miller v. Norris, 247 F. 3d 736, 740 (8 Cir. 2001) th (holding remedy is not

“available” were prison officials purportedly prevented prisoner from employing the prison’s

grievance system).

Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F. 3d at 1119. Here, a factual dispute exists regarding whether the plaintiff

attempted to file the appeal forms and whether the forms were intercepted by prison officials. 

Plaintiff asserts under penalty of perjury that he attempted to file the forms and they were

destroyed by defendants. Defendants contend that they did not interfere with plaintiff’s attempts

to file any appeals. Because of this factual dispute, the defendants have not met their burden of

proof. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. The factual issue of whether the

appeal forms were in fact filed will need to be determined at a later date, if and when the case

proceeds to trial.

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 82 Filed 08/20/07 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

27

28

5

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’ motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed December 29, 2006, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

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

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 82 Filed 08/20/07 Page 5 of 5