Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445-14/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

ROBERT GIBSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN OF CORCORAN STATE PRISON,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-05445-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED IN PART

(Doc. 101)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint

filed on April 21, 2005, against defendants Bailey, See, Lawton, Hass, Beer, Gonzales, Hayward,

Buller, Rousseau, Dill, Scribner, Yamamoto, Ortiz and Hickman for use of excessive force and

retaliation. On March 10, 2006, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b), defendants Bailey, Beer, Buller, Dill, Hass, Hickman, Lawton, Ortiz, Rousseau,

Sees, and Yamamoto filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available

administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on March 20, 2006 and March

27, 2006. Defendants filed a reply on March 22, 2006 and an objection to plaintiff’s sur-reply on

March 29, 2006. On April 6, 2006, defendant Hayward filed a notice of joinder in the motion. On

May 1, 2006, defendants Gonzales and Scribner filed a notice of joinder in the motion. 

B. Exhaustion Requirement

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 148 Filed 10/23/06 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

2

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 regardless of 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).

“Proper exhaustion[, which] demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical

procedural rules . . . .” is required, Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006), and may not be

satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal,” id. at 2382.

Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit, McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.

2002).

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). 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. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza v. Int’l

Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curium)). 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 exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

C. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process isinitiated 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,

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 148 Filed 10/23/06 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

3

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).

In his fourth amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that defendants used excessive force,

confiscated his personal property and retaliated against him. The incidents allegedly took place on

two separate occasions, June 16, 2002 and March 31, 2004.

Defendants move for dismissal on the grounds that as to the June 16, 2002 incident,

plaintiff’s three grievances were screened out as untimely at the third level of administrative review.

Defendants argue that as to the March 31, 2004 incident, while plaintiff filed and exhausted

grievance CSP-COR 04-1416, this grievance does not adequately grieve plaintiff’s claims regarding

the March 31, 2004 incident and even if it does, the complaint should be dismissed as it is supported

by both administratively exhausted and unexhausted claims. 

Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion on the grounds that administrative remedies do not exist

for monetary damages and therefore there is no need for exhaustion. Plaintiff further argues that

defendants have not proven that his grievances regarding the June 16, 2002 were untimely and that

in any event, appeal CSP-COR 04-1416, was timely and exhausted. 

Turning first to plaintiff’s argument that exhaustion is not required to exhaust because he is

seeking money damages, in Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 1999), the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that prisoners seeking only monetary relief need not

exhaust the administrative remedies. The basis of the Circuit Court’s opinion was that, because the

Department of Corrections’ institutional grievance process does not provide for monetary relief, it

offers no available remedy where plaintiff seeks an award of damages. On May 29, 2001, Rumbles

was overruled in part by the decision issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). In Booth, the Court held that prisoners must exhaust the available

administrative remedies even if they are only seeking monetary relief and the prison grievance

process does not provide money. Booth, 731 U.S. at 734. Following the decision in Booth,

prisoners must 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 process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Id. 

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 148 Filed 10/23/06 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

4

A. Claims Relating to the June 16, 2002 Incident.

As to the June 16, 2002 incident, defendants present evidence that plaintiff filed three

grievances, CSP-COR 02-2485; CSP-COR 02-2755 and CSP-COR 02-2922. Declaration of J.

Buckley, ¶¶ 8-15. Plaintiff pursued these grievances to the third level of administrative review, but

each was screened out as untimely filed, having been filed almost three months late. Id. The Court

finds that Defendants have met their burden as the parties moving for dismissal. The burden

therefore shifts to Plaintiff to set forth evidence demonstrating that he satisfied the exhaustion

requirement.

Plaintiff argues that he attempted to satisfy the exhaustion requirement but was unable to do

so. Plaintiff cites to Ngo v. Woodford, 603 F.3d 620 (9 Cir. 2005). However, Ngo was reversed

th

by the U.S. Supreme Court in Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006). In Woodford, the Supreme

Court held that “[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other

critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing

some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at 2386. The Court

held further that “[proper exhaustion] means ... a prisoner must complete the administrative review

process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules ... as a precondition to bringing suit in

federal court.” Id. 

In this case, the appeals relating to the June 16, 2002 incident were rejected for procedural

deficiencies. Plaintiff grievances fall squarely within Woodford and therefore plaintiff’s claims as

to the June 16, 2002 are unexhausted and must be dismissed.

B. Claims Relating to the March 31, 2004 Incident

With regard to the March 31, 2004 events, plaintiff claims that: (1) in retaliation for filing

a grievance relating to the June 16, 2002 incident, defendant Beer, aided by defendants Gonzales and

Hayward, attacked plaintiff by punching him with a closed fist several times, causing bruising and

lacerations to his mouth, all while plaintiff was handcuffed; and (2) Warden Yamamoto, Warden

Ortiz, Warden Scribner and defendant Dill all learned of the attack through the grievance system but

failed to take corrective measures.

Defendants provide evidence that on March 31, 2004, plaintiff filed inmate grievance CSPCase 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 148 Filed 10/23/06 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

5

COR 04-1416. Declaration of J. Buckley, ¶ 16. In this grievance, plaintiff alleges that Officers

Gonzales, Hayward and Beer used excessive force against him and later lied about the incident.

Plaintiff contends the motivation behind the attack was the fact that his family members had filed

complaints against Gonzales and Dill. Plaintiff’s grievance was denied at the third level on October

29, 2004. Defendants argue that while this grievance was exhausted as to defendants Beer, Gonzales

and Hayward, plaintiff’s grievance did not name Hickman, Yamamoto, Dill, Ortiz or Scribner, nor

were any other grievances found which named these defendants or accused them of any wrongdoing.

Plaintiff argues that he is not required to file separate grievances relating to each individual

defendant.

Satisfaction of the exhaustion requirement does not require that the inmate draft his grievance

with the precision of an attorney, setting forth every fact, identifying every defendant by name, and

identifying which constitutional rights were violated by which actions or omissions. Satisfaction of

the exhaustion requirement does require that the inmate, in his grievance, place prison personnel on

fair notice as to the events that subsequently give rise to suit. Appeal CSP-COR 04-1416 did not

grieve plaintiff’s claims against Hickman, Yamamoto, Dill, Ortiz or Scribner. His claims against

these defendants are based on their positions as supervisors. This appeal did not place prison

personnel on notice these claims. Accordingly, while plaintiff’s claims against Beer, Gonzales and

Hayward were exhausted, plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hickman, Yamamoto, Dill, Ortiz and

Scribner were not and therefore these claims must be dismissed. 

C. Conclusion

At set forth in the preceding sections, the court finds that plaintiff did not exhaust his claims

against defendants Lawton, Hass, Beer, Buller, Bailey, See and Rousseau relating to the June 16,

2002 incident. The court also finds that plaintiff did not exhaust his claims against defendants

Hickman, Yamamoto, Dill, Ortiz or Scribner relating the March 31, 2004 incident. These claims and

defendants must therefore be dismissed and this action should proceed only on plaintiff’s claims

against defendants Beer, Gonzales and Hayward regarding the March 31, 2004 incident. See Lira

v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting total exhaustion rule, and directing courts to

dismiss unexhausted claims from action).

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 148 Filed 10/23/06 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

6

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.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 19, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 148 Filed 10/23/06 Page 6 of 6