Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00709/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00709-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

JOHN ERIC CHATMON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1595 ALA P

vs.

MR. DEMERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendant correctional officers Van Leer, Stephens, and Alcorn move under Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim brought by

confined pro se Plaintiff John Eric Chatmon, on the basis that Mr. Chatmon failed to exhaust his

prison administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995

(“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions under [42 U.S.C.] section 1983 . . . by a prisoner . . . until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.”). Mr. Chatmon does not dispute that he failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies. He contends, however, that his failure to exhaust should be

excused, because Defendants prevented him from pursuing his claim through prison channels. 

Properly construed, his argument is that Defendants are estopped by their actions from asserting

the affirmative defense of his failure to exhaust. See Ziemba v. Wezner, 366 F.3d 161, 163 (2nd

Case 2:05-cv-00709-ALA Document 18 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Cir. 2004) (failure to exhaust under the PLRA is not jurisdictional, but is an affirmative defense

subject to estoppel); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (failure to exhaust

under the PLRA is an affirmative defense).

Before reaching the merits of Defendants’ motion, the Court must determine

whether Defendants are, in fact, estopped from asserting Mr. Chatmon’s failure to exhaust his

administrative remedies. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20 (“In deciding a motion to dismiss for a

failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide

disputed issues of fact.”). To aid the Court in making this determination, Mr. Chatmon is

ordered to file supplemental declarations on or before August 24, 2007, setting forth specific

facts supporting his allegation that he “was unlawfully tossed into administrative segregation

lock-up unit as the suspect in a battery on another prisoner,” that his “602 [administrative] appeal

was intercepted by prison officials while [he] was in lock-up unit,” and that he “was accused of

writing false allegations against staff & warned of what may become of any further claims.” 

Defendants are ordered to file supplemental declarations in opposition on or before September

28, 2007.

DATED: July 25, 2007

/s/ Arthur Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:05-cv-00709-ALA Document 18 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 2