Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05321/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05321-4/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

SANTOS MATOS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

04 CV F 5321 REC LJO P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 26)

A. INTRODUCTION

 Santos Matos, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his original

Complaint on February 19, 2004. The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A on May 9, 2004. The Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim under

section 1983 against Defendants M. True and S. Perez for excessive force, and Defendants

A.R. Medina, K. Crouch, and M. Grimes for failure to protect, both in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune,

567 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9 Cir. 2004); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9 Cir. 2003). th th

Case 1:04-cv-05321-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 07/26/06 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

Defendants M. True, S. Perez, A.R. Medina, M. Grimes and K. Crouch requested a thirty

day extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint on September 30, 2005. The

Court granted Defendants request for extension on October 27, 2005. Pending before the court is

Defendants Motion to Dismiss filed on November 21, 2005.

B. UNENUMERATED 12(B) MOTION TO DISMISS - EXHAUSTION 

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). 

Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by

the prisoner and the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 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). 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 v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Based on the general

Case 1:04-cv-05321-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 07/26/06 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

3

principle that summary judgment is on the merits while dismissal of an action for failure to

exhaust is not on the merits, the failure to exhaust non-judicial 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 (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 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. Id. 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. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that on August 27, 2002, at approximately 7:30 p.m., he had a verbal

disagreement with Defendant S. Perez at Wasco State Prison. (Compl., ¶ 16.) According to

Plaintiff, Defendant S. Perez ordered him to turn around and “cuff up.” (Compl., ¶ 17.) 

Plaintiff alleges he complied with the order, and that Defendant A.R. Medina was present during

the handcuffing. (Compl., ¶ 17.) Plaintiff claims, a few minutes later, Defendant M. True

arrived at the scene where he was handcuffed. (Compl., ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges that upon

Defendant M. True’s arrival, Defendant S. Perez began to hit Plaintiff with a baton multiple

times in his arms and wrists while he made “stop-resisting” comments. (Compl., ¶ 20.) 

Defendants M. True and S. Perez, Plaintiff claims, hit him in the stomach two to three times,

causing him to fall to the ground. (Compl., ¶ 21.) Plaintiff states that Defendants K. Crouch and

M. Grimes, who were not initially present, were present when Plaintiff was beaten and fell to the

ground. (Compl., ¶¶ 19, 21.) 

After the initial beating, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants S. Perez and M. True dragged

him into a holding cell in a nearby program office. (Compl., ¶ 22.) Defendants K. Crouch and 

M. Grimes followed them into the holding cell and continued to observe the incident. (Compl., ¶

22.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant S. Perez beat him again with a nightstick and

simultaneously Defendant M. True used physical force against him. (Compl., ¶ 23.) 

Plaintiff claims that after the beatings, a medical assistant was never summoned to inspect

Plaintiff’s bruises and lacerations on his back, arm, and wrists. (Compl., ¶ 24.) Plaintiff

Case 1:04-cv-05321-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 07/26/06 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

4

contends that he was left in the holding cell handcuffed for approximately two hours on 

August 27, 2002. (Compl., ¶ 25.) During those two hours, Plaintiff claims that Defendant A.R.

Medina checked on him once. (Compl., ¶ 25.) Plaintiff states five correctional officers, one

being Defendant M. True, escorted him back to his cell shortly before 10:00 a.m., and, as he

approached his cell, Defendant S. Perez was exiting his cell. (Compl., ¶ 26.) 

On August 28, 2002, Plaintiff claims he went to the medical department and was seen by

nurse Strong, who issued him Tylenol and an ice pack for his bruises and lacerations. (Compl., 

¶ 27.) Strong advised Plaintiff that he should see a doctor for his injuries. (Compl., ¶ 27.)

Plaintiff went to see a doctor on August 30, 2002. (Compl., ¶ 28.) On January 2003, Plaintiff

had back surgery to repair damage from the beatings. (Compl., ¶ 30.) According to Plaintiff, a

neurosurgeon at Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital advised him that he should have a second

back surgery in the future. (Compl. ¶ 30.) 

Plaintiff states that he had no prior psychological or mental problems. Approximately a

week or two after the beatings, Plaintiff claims he was placed in California Department of

Corrections, Correctional Clinical Case Management System due to his fear from the beating and

certain prisoner officials. (Compl., ¶ 29.) In March 2003, Plaintiff transferred to Soledad and he

continued to see psychiatrists and psychologists for his mental condition. (Compl., ¶ 31.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants S. Perez and M. True violated his Eighth Amendment

rights when they used excessive force against him. (Compl., ¶¶¶ 34, 35, 36.) Finally, Plaintiff

asserts that Defendants A.R. Medina, K. Crouch, and M. Grimes acted with deliberate

indifference to his personal health and safety when they observed the incident and failed to

prevent the beatings. (Compl., ¶¶¶ 37, 41, 42.) 

D. ANALYSIS

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed, without prejudice,

because he failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. Defendants contend that Plaintiff filed

an appeal at the informal level that was bypassed to the second level on October 2, 2002,

concerning a CDC Form 115, Serious Rules Violation Report (RVR), arising out of the August

27, 2002, incident involving Defendant S. Perez. According to Defendants, Plaintiff made no

Case 1:04-cv-05321-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 07/26/06 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

 Defendants also inform the Court that on October 30, 2003, Plaintiff received a letter from the 1

Director concerning his “living conditions.” However, this is not relevant to the issue that Plaintiff never

grieved the excessive force or failure to protect claims. 

5

allegations against Defendants for excessive force or failure to protect in his appeal. (Declaration

of N. Grannis in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 10; Attachment 1; Declaration of

A.S. Altnow in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss ¶ 5 (a) & (b)). Rather, Plaintiff only

submitted a claim that he was denied due process at a disciplinary hearing. (Declaration of N.

Grannis in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 10; Declaration of A.S. Altnow in

Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss ¶ 5 (a)). Finally, Defendants state that Plaintiff’s

claim was denied at the director’s level on May 15, 2003. (Declaration of N. Grannis in Support

of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 10). 

A review of the attachments provided in the Motion to Dismiss reveals that Defendants

are correct in their assertion that Plaintiff did not grieve the issue presented in this case.1

Defendants submitted Plaintiff’s informal appeal that was bypassed to the second level of review

in their Motion to Dismiss. (Attachment 1). In Plaintiff’s appeal, he alleges a claim against

Wasco State Prison administration staff for violating his due process rights. However, the appeal

does not assert allegations of excessive force and failure to protect in his informal appeal. 

The Second Level Appeal Response indicated that Plaintiff was interviewed on 

November 25, 2002, by Correctional Counselor II E. Borrero, who gave him a full opportunity to

explain his appeal and substantiate his appeal with evidence. (Id.) According to the Defendants,

during the interview Plaintiff mentioned Defendant S. Perez used excessive force against him. 

(Id.) The Court finds that even though Plaintiff verbally raised his excessive force claim during

the interview, that is not sufficient to exhaust his excessive force claim because he never raised it

in Plaintiff’s informal appeal. Furthermore, Defendants did not address the excessive force claim

on the merits in the second level response. 

In Plaintiff’s original Complaint, he claims that Defendants S. Perez and M. True used

excessive force against him, and Defendants A.R. Medina, K. Crouch, and M. Grimes failed to

protect him in the beatings. (Compl., ¶¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42.) However, the Court finds

Case 1:04-cv-05321-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 07/26/06 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

Plaintiff never raised the failure to protect or excessive force claims through the grievance

process in his informal appeal filed in October 2, 2002. Based on the evidence before the Court,

the Court finds that the inmate appeal is insufficient to put the Defendants on notice of Plaintiff’s

excessive force and failure to protect claims.

Even had Plaintiff’s informal appeal stated a claim for excessive force and failure to

protect against Defendants, he would not have exhausted the administrative remedies because his

appeal was untimely. The incident in Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred on 

August 27, 2002, however, Plaintiff did not file his first level appeal until October 2, 2002, thirty

six days after the alleged violation. 

The Supreme Court has recently held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995

requires a prisoner to exhaust any available administrative remedies before challenging prison

conditions in federal court. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2380 (2006). The Court agreed

with the plaintiff in Woodford and found that “[proper exhaustion] means . . . a prisoner must

complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,

including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Id. (emphasis added).

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for 

inmate appeals. Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 15, art. 8, § 3084 et seq. In order to satisfy the

exhaustion requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), an inmate is required to utilize this

grievance procedure, and thus, must file a complaint within fifteen days of the alleged incident to

comply with section 3084.6(c). The Court finds that Plaintiff has not taken all the steps

prescribed by the prison’s grievance system to exhaust his appeal as he is twenty-one days late in

filing his initial appeal. Therefore, Plaintiff has not exhausted the administrative remedies in

compliance with section 1997e(a).

E. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss, filed November 21, 2005, be GRANTED, and this action be DISMISSED, for

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

Case 1:04-cv-05321-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 07/26/06 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

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.” Thus, Plaintiff is 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: July 26, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05321-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 07/26/06 Page 7 of 7