Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00009/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00009-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERWIN HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0009 DFL KJM P

vs.

CAL A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to this court’s January 31, 2006 order, this action is

currently proceeding against defendant Rohlfing. Defendant Rohlfing has moved to dismiss

arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to his claims prior to

filing suit. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that because he seeks only money damages, he

need not have appealed his grievance past the first step, at which he obtained a partial grant.

A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing

suit arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust non-judicial

remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 

1120. If the district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted non-judicial remedies,

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM Document 29 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 3
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

the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice. Id.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). California prison regulations

provide administrative procedures in the form of one informal and three formal levels of review

to address plaintiff’s claims. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.7. Administrative

procedures generally are exhausted once a prisoner has received a “Director’s Level Decision,”

or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. All

steps must be completed before a civil rights action is filed, unless a plaintiff demonstrates a step

is unavailable to him; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation will not save an action

from dismissal. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). The United States

Supreme Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires exhaustion of available

administrative procedures “regardless of the relief offered through” such procedures. Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Defendant bears the burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, Alameida v.

Wyatt, 540 U.S 810 (2003).

In his complaint, plaintiff claims that he visited Rohlfing for treatment on July 21,

2003 for an eye injury sustained on June 7, 2003. Plaintiff claims Rohlfing conducted a cursory

examination causing plaintiff to suffer pain in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 

In his motion to dismiss, Rohlfing presents evidence indicating that plaintiff filed

a grievance against Rohlfing on July 21, 2003. Mot., Ex. A. The grievance was partially granted

at the first level. Mot., Ex. A. After that, as he concedes, plaintiff did not grieve defendant’s

Rohlfing conduct that forms the basis of plaintiff’s claim against defendant Rohlfing in this

action to a higher level. Mot., Ex. C at 2:16-19. Accordingly, plaintiff did not exhaust

administrative remedies with respect to the claim in this action before filing suit. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM Document 29 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Rohlfing’s May 25, 2006 motion to dismiss be granted; and 

2. 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: December 14, 2006. 

1

harr0009.57

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM Document 29 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 3