Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05397/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05397-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAUMLER, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-CV-05397-LJO-SMS-PC

SECOND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING

MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. 34) 

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Christopher Lee Jenkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 16, 2002. On August 12, 2002, Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff moved to submit Second Amended Complaint and lodged the

complaint on January 9, 2003. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and the Second Amended

Complaint was filed on April 2, 2003. Also on April 2, 2003, the Court dismissed the Second

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Amended Complaint with leave to amend. A Third Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiff

on June 27, 2003. Plaintiff moved to amend the Third Amended Complaint on September 2,

2003. The request was granted on November 7, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended

Complaint. 

On March 9, 2005, the Court dismissed the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to

amend and informed Plaintiff that he could file a Fifth Amended Complaint curing the defects

outlined by the Court, or inform the Court that he wished to proceed on the claims found

cognizable and dismiss those not cognizable. 

On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a pleading

titled “Motion to Dismiss on June 20, 2005, that informed the Court that he did not wish to file a

Sixth Amended Complaint. 

On July 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion informing the Court that he wished to proceed

on the retaliation claim against Defendant Baumler which the Court found cognizable in the

Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also stated that he wished to dismiss all claims against all

other Defendants and also wished the Court to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint altogether. 

The Court issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Plaintiff’s request and dismiss all

Defendants except Defendant Baumler for a retaliation claim. These Findings were adopted by

the Court on October 4, 2006. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended

Complaint against Defendant Baumler for retaliation. 

On February 6, 2007, Defendants moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Although Plaintiff requested an extension

of time to file an Opposition, which was granted, no Opposition was filed. 

On March 30, 2007, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a Response to the

Motion to Dismiss. On April 3, 2007, Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder submitted Findings

and Recommendations to United States District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, recommending that

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted. On May 3, 2007, due to Plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time, the court issued an order vacating the Findings and Recommendations of April

3, 2007, and granting Plaintiff an extension of time to file a Response to Defendants’ Motion to

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 7
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

Due to the order in which the events were administratively entered on the record, the findings and 1

recommendation were issued without knowledge of Plaintiff’s timely motion for extension of time. (See Court’s

Order of May 3, 2007; Doc. 72.)

3

Dismiss within thirty days. More than sixty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a 1

Response to the Motion to Dismiss or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

B. SUMMARY OF FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

In the Fourth Amended Complaint (filed November 7, 2003), Plaintiff alleges that on

September 15, 2001, Defendant Baumler, a library technician assistant working at CSATF/SP,

Corcoran’s Facility E library, warned Plaintiff that it “could be bad for [him] if [he] was to

continue with his appeal” he had filed complaining about the law library. Plaintiff interpreted

this to mean that Defendant would put more restrictions on paging system which was already

restricted and that “word could get out” that it was the result of the appeal Plaintiff filed

regarding the law library. (Compl. at 7:10-20.) Plaintiff states that further restrictions were put

on the law library and prohibited inmates from receiving copies of cases ordered through the

paging system. (Compl. at 7:27-8:7.) Other inmates were told (presumably by Defendant

Baumler) that the new restrictions were the result of Plaintiff’s refusal to withdraw a grievance

regarding the inadequate book collection in the law library. (Compl. at 7:21-24.) Several

inmates confronted Plaintiff and expressed their anger that the restrictions in place were the

result of Plaintiff’s refusal to withdraw his grievance. (Compl. 8:8-16.) 

C. MOTION TO DISMISS

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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and

requires prisoners to complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought

by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/11/07 Page 3 of 7
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

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. 2

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated 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).

4

process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 2

741 (2001). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing

to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5). “Proper exhaustion[, which] demands compliance with an

agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” is required, Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S.Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006), and may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise

procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Id. at 2382. Finally, exhaustion must occur prior to filing

suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002).

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy

which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at

3084.1(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.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5 (2004). 

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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. 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. Id. (citing Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union,

837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)). 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

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/11/07 Page 4 of 7
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

In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that the law library incident with Defendant Baumler 3

occurred one month prior to the three months time frame Plaintiff states the incidents concerning the “threat” notes

occurred - likely September of 2001. 

5

exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

In this case, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

with regard to the retaliation allegation against Defendant Baumler. In addition, Defendants state

that Plaintiff’s inmate appeal was untimely and therefore, was not in compliance with the prisons

procedural rules. 

The Court rejects Defendants argument regarding the timeliness of Plaintiff’s inmate

appeal. Although it is true that Plaintiff filed his inmate appeal far beyond the fifteen day

deadline imposed, appeals coordinators have the discretion to accept untimely appeals. Cal.

Code. Regs., tit. 15, §3084.3(c). It is clear from the evidence provided by the Defendants that

despite the delay, Plaintiff’s appeal was reviewed at both the informal and first formal levels. 

Defendants contention that the claims are unexhausted because Plaintiff did not complete

the exhaustion process is more compelling. Mr. Hall, Appeals Coordinator at Corcoran, states in

his declaration that Plaintiff submitted an appeal (Log. No. 02-00128), on January 3, 2002 in

which he alleged that prison officials disregarded several “threat” notes written by other prisoners

against Plaintiff. Plaintiff stated that the last incident involving a threat occurred on October 13,

2001, nearly three months before Plaintiff filed his appeal. Plaintiff also made reference to his

belief that Defendant Jenkins had placed restrictions on access to the paging system of the law

library in retaliation for a previous grievance filed Plaintiff. (Exh. A, Motion to Dismiss 3

[hereinafter “Motion”.) However, the action requested by Plaintiff was only that the threat notes

be produced and an explanation as to why the notes were disregarded be given to him. Id.

On January 14, 2002, Correctional Counselor Dimmer conducted an informal inquiry into

alleged staff misconduct. In the investigation, Dimmer interviewed several individuals regarding

all of the allegations made by Plaintiff and included an interview of both Plaintiff and Defendant

Baumler regarding the law library and retaliation allegation. Mr. Dimmer concluded that

Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Baumler were unsubstantiated and that no further review

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/11/07 Page 5 of 7
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

of the matter was necessary. (Hall Decl. at ¶ 6.) 

On February 20, 2002, Correctional Captain D.A. Cuevas and Associate Warden D.L.

Cobbs issued a first formal level response to Plaintiff’s appeal Log No. 02-00218. (Exh. C,

Motion.) The first level response was granted to the extent that an inquiry had been conducted

into the alleged misconduct by K.D. Elliott concerning tampering with confidential material. 

The appeal did not, however, reference the allegations against Defendant Baumler and the

adequacy of the law library. (Exh. A at 6, 10-11, Motion.) Plaintiff did not file a second level

appeal. (Hall Decl. at ¶ 8.) 

Defendant also provides evidence that Plaintiff did not appeal his allegations to the third

level. N. Grannis, Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch states that a search was conducted of all

inmate appeals and no appeal concerning the above issues was ever filed or received by Plaintiff. 

(Grannis Decl. at ¶ 5.) 

The Court finds that Defendant has met his burden as the party moving for dismissal on

exhaustion grounds. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that exhaustion occurred

or that an exception exists. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 

As indicated above, Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and

thus, presents no evidence to refute Defendant’s contentions. 

Based on the evidence before the Court, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not

properly exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his allegations against Defendant

Baumler. Although Plaintiff submitted an appeal on January 1, 2001, the action requested

concerned the threat notes and that they were disregarded by prison officials. (Exh. A at 5,

Motion.) Although Mr. Dimmer conducted an informal investigation into the allegations

Plaintiff made in his grievance, including those against Defendant Baumler, he concluded that

the allegations were unsubstantiated and that no further action was necessary on the issue. (Exh.

A at 6, 10-11, Motion.) Plaintiff then appealed to the first formal level. (Exh. A at 13, Motion.) 

However, at this level, Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the adequacy of the law library and the

alleged retaliation by Defendant Baumler were not addressed. Id. Although the appeal was

granted in part, it was granted only with regard to the fact that an investigation was conducted

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/11/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

into the allegations concerning the tampering of material by K.D. Elliott. Id. 

Even assuming that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficiently reviewed at the first level,

Plaintiff did not file an appeal to the second level or the third, Directors level. (Hall Decl. at ¶8;

Grannis Decl. at 4, 5). As noted by Defendants, proper exhaustion includes compliance with

deadlines and other procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2387-88 (2006). 

However, Plaintiff did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies within the institution and

thus, the claim before the Court is unexhausted and requires dismissal.

D. ORDER

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss the action on the

grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies be GRANTED and the case

dismissed. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/11/07 Page 7 of 7