Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02924/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02924-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Record as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin924mtd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE S. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

KENNETH PONDER, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-2924 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

AUGMENT THE RECORD AS

MOOT

(Docket Nos. 14, 26)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint in the

Monterey Superior Court, alleging a claim of deliberate indifference concerning his

dental care on the part of medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). 

Defendants removed this action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b). The Court granted Defendants’ motion to screen the

complaint and initially dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because the

complaint did not set forth facts sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, and the Court ordered service of the amended

complaint on Defendants. 

*Original filed 3/23/07

Case 5:04-cv-02924-JF Document 27 Filed 03/23/07 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Record as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin924mtd 2

Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b) on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior

to filing his complaint. Plaintiff has filed opposition with supporting documentation of

his prison administrative appeal and a motion to augment the record. Defendants have

filed a reply. Based upon the papers submitted, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint and will DISMISS the

instant complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (docket

no. 14). The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion to augment the record with

interrogatory responses of Defendant Ponder (docket no. 26) as moot. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Salinas Valley State Prison medical personnel provided

inadequate dental care and were deliberately indifferent to his dental needs based upon

their refusal to allow Plaintiff to see an outside dentist for treatment. Plaintiff names the

following Defendants in his complaint: Kenneth Ponder, Chief Dental Officer at Salinas

Valley State Prison; C. Kates, LVN at Salinas Valley State Prison; and Charles Dudley

Lee, Health Care Manager at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff filed an administrative

appeal at SVSP concerning his claims. Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint in the

Monterey Superior Court on October 8, 2003. On July 19, 2004, Defendants removed

this action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

1441(b). 

DISCUSSION

The record shows that Plaintiff filed his civil rights complaint in the Monterey

Superior Court on October 8, 2003, prior to the exhaustion of his administrative appeal on

October 15, 2003. In his opposition to the instant motion, Plaintiff alleges that because he

exhausted his administrative remedies prior to the removal of the instant action to this

Court and the Court’s initial order of service on February 18, 2005, his administrative

Case 5:04-cv-02924-JF Document 27 Filed 03/23/07 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

 1 According to the Court’s docket, Defendants removed this civil rights action to this Court on

July 19, 2004 (docket no. 1). The Court granted Defendants’ motion to screen the complaint and

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on February 18, 2005 (docket no. 12). 

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Record as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin924mtd 3

remedies have been properly exhausted.1 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996) (“PLRA”), amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[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

exhaustion requirement only applies to cases filed after the passage of the PLRA on April

26, 1996. See Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion

requirement applied to case refiled after PLRA enacted). 

Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. 

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

739 (2001)). “Prisoners must now exhaust all ‘available’ remedies, not just those that

meet federal standards.” Id. Even when the relief sought cannot be granted by the

administrative process, i.e., monetary damages, a prisoner must still exhaust

administrative remedies. Id. at 2382-83 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 734). The mandatory

exhaustion of available administrative remedies is not limited to suits under § 1983, but to

any suit challenging prison conditions. Id. at 2383 (citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,

524 (2002)). 

Nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 

127 S. Ct. 910, 922-23 (2007); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the

absence of exhaustion, and inmates are not required to plead or demonstrate exhaustion

specifically in their complaints. Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 921-22. As there can be no absence

of exhaustion unless some relief remains available, a movant claiming lack of exhaustion

must demonstrate that pertinent relief remained available, whether at unexhausted levels

Case 5:04-cv-02924-JF Document 27 Filed 03/23/07 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Record as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin924mtd 4

or through awaiting the results of the relief already granted as a result of that process. 

Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2005). 

A nonexhaustion claim should be raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion

rather than in a motion for summary judgment. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. In deciding

such a motion – a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial 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 not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper

remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id. at 1120.

The PLRA exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of available

administrative remedies. Id. at 2387. The issue presented in this case has been addressed

directly by the Ninth Circuit, which has held that an action must be dismissed unless the

prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before he or she filed suit, even

if the prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d

1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.

2006) (where administrative remedies are not exhausted before the prisoner sends his

complaint to the court it will be dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by the time the

complaint is actually filed). 

The State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal

administratively “any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can

demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. Title 15,

§ 3084.1(a). It also provides its inmates the right to file administrative appeals alleging

misconduct by correctional officers. See id. § 3084.1(e). In order to exhaust available

administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several

levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate

appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third level

appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Id. § 3084.5; Barry v.

Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). This satisfies the administrative

remedies exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. 

Case 5:04-cv-02924-JF Document 27 Filed 03/23/07 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Record as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin924mtd 5

Here, Petitioner filed a prison administrative appeal challenging his complaint

concerning his dental care at SVSP. Plaintiff then filed his original complaint in

Monterey Superior Court on October 8, 2003. See Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Docket

No. 1). The prison administrative appeal was completed on October 15, 2003, the date of

the Director’s Level Appeal Decision denying his appeal. See Plaintiff’s Opposition,

Exhibit A at 1-2. Because Plaintiff filed his complaint before his administrative appeal

was completely exhausted, Respondent’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint

(docket no. 14) must be GRANTED. 

Plaintiff moves to augment the record to include Defendant Ponder’s response to

Plaintiff’s set 2 of interrogatories which allegedly includes Defendant Ponder’s admission

that he has never sent any inmate to an outside contracted dentist. See Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2. 

Based upon the Court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, the motion to augment the record (docket no. 26) is DENIED as moot. 

CONCLUSION

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant complaint (docket no. 14) is

GRANTED for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to

filing his civil rights complaint in the state superior court. Plaintiff’s motion to augment

the record based upon Defendant Ponder’s alleged admission (docket no. 26) is DENIED

as moot. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate all

pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

3/22/07

Case 5:04-cv-02924-JF Document 27 Filed 03/23/07 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Record as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin924mtd 6

A copy of this order has been mailed to:

Ronnie S. Martin 

T-64750

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960-1060

Michael Jorgenson 

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

 

 

Case 5:04-cv-02924-JF Document 27 Filed 03/23/07 Page 6 of 6