Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02193/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02193-7/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

 Plaintiff’s most recent change of address indicates that he has paroled, as of March 8, 1

2006. See docket entry #’s 40 and 42.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRONCELL FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2193 GEB GGH P

vs.

MENDOZA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

_____________________________/

Introduction

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 1

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ December 23, 2005, motion to dismiss,

to which plaintiff filed an opposition on January 17, 2006; defendants’ reply was filed on January

30, 2006.

Second Amended Complaint

This action, originally filed on October 17, 2003, is proceeding on a second

amended complaint, filed on December 20, 2004, against defendants Warden Teresa A.

Schwartz; Correctional Counselor (CC)II J. Bautista; Capt. Mendoza; CCI D. Pappa; Lieut.

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 11
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

 Defendants’ counsel has corrected plaintiff’s spelling of this defendant’s name from 2

Roszko to Rosko. The court will use the correct spelling for defendants’ names in setting forth

plaintiff’s allegations.

 Defendant’s counsel has corrected this defendant’s name from Oldham to Oldham- 3

Summers.

2

Rosko ; Correctional Officer (C/O) Oldham-Summers ; Appeal Coordinator CCI M. Cry; Sgt. 2 3

Ruiz. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of due process, on July 10, 2003, by the

manner in which defendants CCI Pappa, CCII Bautista, CCI K. Hayward (not a defendant),

Acting Facility Captain (Lieut.) B. Rosko, and Facility Captain Mendoza conducted his

classification hearing extending his C-custody status at CMF. Second Amended Complaint

(SAC), p. 8. An instructor named Escobar, not a defendant, had confiscated plaintiff’s work card

when he had asked to go the restroom. Id. Plaintiff is housed in Unit 4, which houses inmates

with HIV/AIDS. Id. Plaintiff could not work or attend school once his work card had been

confiscated. SAC, p. 9. As a result, plaintiff was given a serious rules violation report (RVR)

for refusal to work; at the CDC 115 hearing held on July 3, 2003, for the RVR; defendant Rosko

dropped the violation from serious to administrative, but used the report as the reason to place

plaintiff on C-status at a Unit Classification Committee (UCC) Hearing of which he was the

Acting Chairman. SAC, pp. 8-9. 

Defendant Rosko allegedly violated plaintiff’s due process rights by conducting

both the prison disciplinary action and by chairing the classification hearing extending plaintiff’s

C-custody status. Id. Plaintiff was also deprived of staff assistance at the prison disciplinary

hearing to which he was entitled under CAL. CODE REGS. tit.xv, § 3318, and because he has a

learning disability under the ADA. SAC, pp. 9, 15. Defendant Rosko also retained plaintiff on

C-status beyond the time for a classification review. SAC, p. 15. Defendant Rosko separated

plaintiff from his cellmate simply to harass him; plaintiff was not allowed to be placed on

another wing, unlike any other inmate. AC, p. 16.

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 11
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

 It is unclear how plaintiff could have filed a June 21, 2003, grievance for events that 4

occurred in July, 2003.

3

Plaintiff timely filed his June 21, 2003, grievance, which bypassed “all 4

institutional levels” and was returned to him on July 22, 2003, from defendant Appeals

Coordinator Cry at the California Medical Facility (CMF). On July 28, 2003, plaintiff mailed out

a director’s level appeal, which was received on July 30, 2003, but returned to plaintiff on

August 11, 2003, indicating that plaintiff had filed the appeal beyond the 15-day limit for

initiating the grievance or had exceeded the time limit for appealing a lower level decision. 

SAC, p. 10. Defendant Cry and the chief of inmate appeals have rejected all efforts by plaintiff

to exhaust his appeal. Defendants have conspired to retaliate against and harass plaintiff because

he has begun to fight for his rights. Id. 

Defendant Oldham-Summers conspired with Unit 4 staff, on July 10 and 25,

2003, and on August 1 and 2, 2003, by falsifying CDC 28 A forms that were submitted to the

classification hearing to retain plaintiff on C-status. AC, p. 11. From July 10, 2003, to February

18, 2004, plaintiff has been unconstitutionally retained on C-status as a result of CMF staff

discriminating against African-Americans with respect to C-status placement. Id. Plaintiff

alleges that one white inmate in V-wing, a Rocky Stewert [sic], refused school but was

reassigned to another job, not placed on C-status. Id. When African-American inmates try to

appeal this unequal treatment at CMF, they are retaliated against. Id. 

Plaintiff’s grievances claiming harassment and retaliation against defendant

Oldham-Summers for presenting falsified 128 A reports and serious rule violations were rejected

by defendant Cry without cause; when plaintiff re-sent the appeals, they were returned with no

response. Id. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and his First Amendment

rights were thereby violated; CMF management and staff have engaged in a “Code of Silence”

and a conspiracy. Id. 

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 11
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

4

Defendant Pappa harassed and retaliated against plaintiff by falsifying

classification reports and responded to plaintiff’s September 10, 2003, grievance about him

which plaintiff appealed; this appeal was rejected by defendant Cry. AC, pp. 11-12. Defendant

Pappa further violated plaintiff’s due process rights because he was on vacation when the thirtyday time limit elapsed in which plaintiff was due, after submitting a request to be taken off Cstatus, to be seen by the classification committee. AC, p. 12. This, too, is an example of the

discrimination suffered by HIV/AIDS’ African-American inmates at CMF. Id. Defendant

Pappa did not allow plaintiff assistance at classification hearings. AC, p. 17.

Defendant Bautista was a part of and aware of the conspiracy against plaintiff to

retain him on C-status by use of falsified documents. Id. Defendant Ruiz deprived plaintiff, due

to his C-status, of law library access on September 13, 17, and 20, 2003, and of his right to attend

a religious service on September 13, 2003 in violation of his First Amendment rights. AC, pp.

12-13. When plaintiff appealed, the appeal was partially granted and he was allowed to attend

church. AC, p. 13. However, plaintiff sent a third level appeal, on October 17, 2003, that was

still pending and was beyond the 60-day limit for a response, as of February 18, 2004, when this

complaint was filed. The court notes that this action, however, was filed on October 17, 2003,

the same day plaintiff states that he initiated the third level appeal.

Defendant Mendoza was the main chairperson of Unit 4’s classification

committee and intentionally acted to place African-Americans on C-status without due process. 

Id. Mendoza discriminated against African-American inmates by placing them on C-status

absent procedural due process. Id. Mendoza supervised all of the other defendants, except

defendant Schwartz, and was aware of and part of the conspiracy to falsify documents against

plaintiff and to discriminate, retaliate against, and harass him. Id. 

Plaintiff’s administrative appeal was rejected by defendant Cry and at the third

level. Id. Defendant Cry rejected and on one occasion lost an appeal re-sent to him and has

refused to process appeals to the third level or has rejected them, even when plaintiff has

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 4 of 11
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

5

followed instructions from the third level, in violation of his First Amendment rights and

Fourteenth Amendment (due process) rights. AC, p. 14. Defendant Cry arbitrarily rejects most

inmate appeals at CMF. Id. On July 22, 2003, plaintiff sent an appeal concerning staff

misconduct by defendants Rosko and Oldham-Summers, which he re-sent but which was lost by

the appeal coordinator (presumably, Cry). 

On September 19, 2003, defendant Cry refused to file a CDC ADA 1824 form

filed by plaintiff, complaining of discrimination by medical and custody staff by revealing the

confidential information to plaintiff’s ex-girlfriend that plaintiff was HIV/AIDS positive. Id. 

Plaintiff sent the ADA 1824 form on the third level, which informed him that the form had to be

processed first and directly through the second level, which is an example of how plaintiff

follows directions from the third level which only results in appeals be rejected at the second

level by defendant Cry. Id. 

Plaintiff informed defendant Schwartz by confidential mail of his allegations of

violations of his constitutional rights. AC, p. 15. 

Plaintiff also alleges state law negligence claims against defendants. Plaintiff

seeks money damages and injunctive relief. As to any claims for injunctive relief, as court

records indicate that plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at that institution and, in fact, appears to

have paroled, the undersigned finds that any such claims have been rendered moot. When an

inmate seeks injunctive relief concerning an institution at which he is no longer incarcerated, his

claims for such relief become moot. See Sample v. Borg, 870 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1989); Darring

v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632

(9th Cir. 1988). As plaintiff has been released, he can demonstrate no reasonable possibility that

he will be incarcerated at California Medical Facility at any predictable time in the future. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims should be dismissed.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 5 of 11
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

6

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move for dismissal on the grounds that: 1) under non-enumerated Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b), plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit; and 2)

under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state one of

his First Amendment claims as to defendants Schwartz, Rosko, Cry and Ruiz. Motion to

Dismiss (MTD), pp. 1, 3. 

Failure to Exhaust - Legal Standard under Non-Enumerated Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)

In a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under nonenumerated Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants “have the burden of

raising and proving exhaustion.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9 Cir. 2003). The th

parties may go outside the pleadings, submitting affidavits or declarations under penalty of

perjury, but plaintiff must be provided with notice of his opportunity to develop a record. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14. The court provided plaintiff with such fair notice by order

filed on August 18, 2005. 

Should defendants submit declarations and/or other documentation demonstrating

an absence of exhaustion, making a prima facie showing, plaintiff must refute that showing;

however, the ultimate burden remains with defendants. Plaintiff may rely upon statements made

under the penalty of perjury in the complaint if the complaint shows that plaintiff has personal

knowledge of the matters stated and plaintiff calls to the court’s attention those parts of the

complaint upon which plaintiff relies. If the court determines that plaintiff has failed to exhaust,

dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy for non-exhaustion of administrative

remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120.42

PLRA Requirements

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides 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

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 6 of 11
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 Defendant’s counsel has corrected defendant Oldham’s name to Oldham-Summers.

5

7

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Inmates seeking injunctive relief

must exhaust administrative remedies. Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). In Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001), the Supreme Court held that inmates must

exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures. 532 U.S. at 741, 121 S. Ct. at 1825. Therefore, inmates seeking money damages

must also completely exhaust their administrative remedies. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

121 S. Ct. 1819 (inmates seeking money damages are required to exhaust administrative

remedies even where the grievance process does not permit awards of money damages). 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions until

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198

(9th Cir. 2002).

Administrative Exhaustion Procedure

In order for California prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies, they 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. Barry v. Ratelle,

985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final

decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Id. at 1237-

38.5

Discussion

Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to exhaust the prison’s administrative

grievance process prior to filing suit, stating that the conduct alleged in the complaint did not

begin until May 24, 2003. As the court has noted, plaintiff’s complaint was filed on October 17,

2003. Between April 2003 and February 2004, according to defendants, plaintiff submitted only

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 7 of 11
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

 For some reason, defendants do not include a copy of the December 3, 2003, third level 6

appeal response, but the court finds it unnecessary not only because the underlying grievance, as

defendants point out, is not implicated by the allegations of this complaint. 

8

two appeals to the third or director’s level, that were in compliance with the regulations

governing the appeals process. MTD, Exhibit (Exh.) 1, Declaration of Chief of Inmate Appeals

Branch N. Grannis, ¶ 4. Final decisions at the director’s level were not rendered on these

grievances, at the director’s level, until December 3, 2003 and April 8, 2004. MTD, Exh. 1 ¶ 4;

Exh. 5 at p. 1-2. Thus, plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

MTD, p. 6.

In addition, the first grievance, denied at the third level on December 3, 2003, not 6

submitted to the director’s level until October 3, 2003, concerned issues and facts unrelated to

the plaintiff’s allegations. MTD, Exh. 3 at pp. 3-5. This grievance concerned a rules

violation report (115) issued by Defendant Oldham-Summers on May 24, 2003, for delaying a

peace officer/institutional count, wherein plaintiff admitted that Oldham-Summers’ allegations

were factually correct, but asserted that his conduct was justified. Id. More than three months

later, plaintiff filed a grievance alleging that Oldham-Summers intentionally placed false serious

rules violation reports (CDC 128s) in his central file, which appeal was not exhausted until April

2, 2004. MTD, p. 6, Exh. 5.

Plaintiff argues in his opposition that he made efforts to exhaust his appeals

before filing suit, but that his appeals were rejected. He claims that he filed such a grievance

against defendant Rosko that was rejected, referring to exhibits attached to his first amended

complaint on September 23, 2004. Opp., p. 2.

Among the exhibits plaintiff includes is a June 1, 2004, third level decision

denying his appeal with regard to his claim that he is being discriminated against by not being

allowed to choose his cell partner, a claim that he may seek to be making with respect to

defendant Rosko within this action. Although not referenced by defendants, the date of this

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 8 of 11
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

 This rejection apparently involved plaintiff’s grievance concerning his wish to be re- 7

classified after being retained on C-status. Attached to the rejection form was a copy of the

applicable regulation informing plaintiff that he must submit a written request concerning the

matter to defendant Pappa, after which a hearing would be scheduled 30 days thereafter.

9

appeal denial illustrates that this claim was not exhausted at the time plaintiff filed this action. In

fact, plaintiff’s exhibits show that he did not even initiate this grievance until November 5, 2003,

almost a month after this case was filed. This claim of discrimination should be dismissed as

unexhausted. 

Plaintiff has not in his opposition produced exhibits in a manner to support the

allegations of his complaint or to oppose the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. In the apparently randomly organized bulk of exhibits that to which he

asks the court to refer, it is evident that defendant Cry has rejected a number of his appeals. A

review indicates that certain of his appeals have been rejected for failing to attempt to resolve the

matter first at the informal level (rejected 8/12/03) , for attempting to submit a grievance on 7

behalf of another inmate (rejected on 11/14/03), for failing to adequately complete the 602 form

or failing to attach the proper documents (rejected 9/15/03 (same form also dated 9/22/03), also

rejected for this reason on 11/24/03). A grievance evidently related to a complaint by plaintiff

that his mail was opened outside his presence was rejected on 10/15/03 (also dated 10/17/03)

because the mail at issue did not meet the confidential correspondence specifications per CAL.

CODE REGS. tit.xv, §§ 3141 and 3144, which were attached to the rejection form. On 7/22/03, an

appeal regarding staff misconduct was rejected by defendant Cry because the action complained

of “ad min lock-up status” had not yet occurred. Plaintiff’s grievance concerning the alleged

misconduct of a staffmember, not a defendant herein, was rejected on 1/22/04 because it was a

duplicate. Plaintiff’s grievance concerning his disabilities was rejected on 10/17/03 because

plaintiff had not attempted to resolve his problem informally, his disabilities were not covered

under the Armstrong Remedial Plan, and he had not demonstrated that he was suffering any

adverse impact. Plaintiff was directed on the form to file a 602, not the 1824 (or 1424?) form.

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 9 of 11
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

10

Plaintiff included one grievance, dated 11/4/02, without the rejection form, which was stamped

“rejected,” wherein plaintiff claims discriminatory conduct on the part of defendant Rosko, but

fails to specify or define the alleged conduct in any manner. 

Plaintiff has not organized the exhibits so that it is plain what grievance is being

rejected. Most of the dates on the forms indicate that the grievances at issue were filed beyond

the filing date of this action. Although plaintiff claims to have been diligent and to have been

improperly thwarted by defendant Cry in his efforts to process his appeals, his exhibits, on the

face of it, do not support that conclusion. Where grievances have been rejected, plaintiff simply

makes no significant showing that such rejections have been unprocessed for ulterior motives or

as a result of a conspiracy. Plaintiff has failed to identify any exhibit that demonstrates that he

was improperly denied the processing of a grievance. Plaintiff’s reliance on Ngo v. Woodford,

403 F.3d 620 (9 Cir. 2005), is unavailing because that case has been reversed. Opp., p. 3. The th

Supreme Court, in Woodford v. Ngo, ___ U.S.___, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2387 (2006), has found that

the PLRA requires “proper exhaustion,” which means that plaintiff may not excuse his failure to

complete the administrative exhaustion process simply by alleging that defendants refuse to

process his grievances, at least without some demonstration that his grievances have been

properly filed in compliance with prison regulations, which plaintiff has failed to do here. 

Defendants also aver that while plaintiff received a partial grant, on October 6,

2003, at the institutional, or second, level with respect to his grievance, apparently related to

defendant Ruiz, that he was denied the right to attend a religious service on August 1, 2003,

having submitted the grievance on August 24, 2003, that plaintiff did not thereafter seek a third

level review. MTD, Exh. 4, p. 1. Defendants argue that notwithstanding the partial grant

because plaintiff filed this action, he was evidently not satisfied and should have sought third

level review of the grievance. 

Within the second amended complaint, plaintiff sets forth that he did file a third

level appeal, on October 17, 2003, an appeal that was still pending in February 18, 2004. As the

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 10 of 11
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

11

court has previously noted above, the problem for plaintiff is that October 17, 2003, is the same

day that he filed the original complaint in this action. Therefore, pursuant to McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, this claim was not exhausted prior to plaintiff’s having filed suit. 

Defendants’ motion should be granted on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to

exhaust administrative remedies. The court need not address the motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ December 23,

2005, motion to dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: 8/23/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

fost2193.mtd

Case 2:03-cv-02193-GEB-GGH Document 43 Filed 08/22/06 Page 11 of 11