Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02258/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02258-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH EVERETT JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Deputy HENSEL; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-2258 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Joseph Everett Johnson, Jr., formerly an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail and now

incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff failed

to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff has opposed the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff also

has filed a "motion of compliance with court order," a motion to amend, and a motion for

sanctions. The action will be dismissed because administrative remedies were not exhausted

before it was filed. 

BACKGROUND

The complaint in this action alleged that defendants had retaliated against Johnson on

April 4, 21, and 28, 2005, while he was incarcerated at the San Mateo County Jail. 

The inmate appeal process for the San Mateo County Jail's Maguire correctional facility

is described in the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office policy and procedures manual. See

Sanchez Decl., Exh. A. That manual states that an inmate may grieve any condition of

Case 3:05-cv-02258-SI Document 41 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Johnson conceded that he did not exhaust administrative remedies for the April 21, 2005

incident and moved to amend his complaint to dismiss that claim. See Opposition, p. 1 (docket

# 36); Motion To Amend, p. 2 (docket # 34). The claim regarding the April 21, 2005 incident

will be dismissed. 

2

confinement over which the Sheriff's office has control, including classification actions,

disciplinary actions and program participation. Sanchez Decl., Exh. A. The manual urges

resolution of an inmate grievance at the lowest level possible level, and describes the steps to

be taken to appeal an inmate grievance. The steps include informal resolution efforts followed

by submission of written grievance if the inmate is dissatisfied with the response. The steps also

include levels of review by the housing sergeant, the watch commander, and the detention

division captain/facility commander. 

There is no evidence that the policy and procedure manual that described the

administrative appeal process was posted at the county jail. Instead, a section of Title 15 of the

California Code of Regulations was posted at the county jail. That section provides that inmate

grievance procedures are to be developed at various facilities, and that the policies and

procedures shall include a grievance form or instructions for registering a grievance and various

levels of appeal/review. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1073. 

The complaint alleges that Johnson was subjected to retaliation on April 5, 21, and 28,

2005 by jail staff while Johnson was incarcerated at the San Mateo County Jail's Maguire

facility. Johnson did file inmate grievances regarding the April 5 and April 28 incidents, but

concedes that he did not do so for the April 21 incident.1

 

After not receiving a response to the grievances regarding the April 5 and 28 incidents,

Johnson sent Captain Sanchez a letter and filed another grievance. His May 16, 2005 letter to

Captain Sanchez complained that his grievances dated April 5 and May 3 had "not been duly

returned to me." Opposition, Exh. G. Captain Sanchez wrote in a May 20, 2005 response, "I

will have my staff locate, review & return the grievances responses to you w/in (1) week."

Opposition, Exh. H. Johnson's May 22, 2005 grievance, also directed to Captain Sanchez, stated

that "this appeal contests the untimely process of appellants [sic] two (2) grievances which

Case 3:05-cv-02258-SI Document 41 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

concern constitutional deprivations by staff. These grievances were submitted on 4/5/2005 and

5/3/2005, and as of this writing, have not been responded to." Opposition, Exh. I. The

supervisor's response dated May 22, 2005 stated that an inmate appeal had "been submitted to

Lt. Randleman for review regarding the above stated grievance" and the part of the form for the

facility commander's response stated that the two grievances "have been addressed by way of

an inquiry and the results memorialized in the form of an administrative review." Id. On the

other form, the August 4, 2005 response stated: "Mr Johnson, an administrative inquiry was done

regarding your claim by Sgt. Southward. In that inquiry you were interviewed on 4/20/05 and

refused to make a statement. The inquiry also located some evidence that disputed your claim.

The findings of your claim regarding a racial slur are negative and no further action is taken on

your grievance." Opposition, Exh. J. The parties agree that Johnson received that response on

August 4, 2005. See Opposition, p. 3; Motion, p. 5. 

This action is deemed to have been filed on May 27, 2005, the date Johnson stated in his

proof of service that he mailed the complaint to the court. See Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d

1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003).

DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss

"No 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

State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal administratively "any

departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely

affecting their welfare." See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust the

administrative remedies process in the San Mateo County Jail, the inmate had to appeal the

lower level denials of his inmate appeal all the way to the Detention Division Captain (Facility

Commander), as described in the policy and procedures manual quoted above. 

Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534

Case 3:05-cv-02258-SI Document 41 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

U.S. 516, 524 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation omitted). Even

when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably money damages,

exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

An inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a matter in abatement.

Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion, and may do so by

way of an unenumerated Rule12(b) motion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

2003). "In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court

may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact." Id. at 1119-20, citing Ritza

v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988). The court

can decide factual issues in a jurisdictional or related type of motion because there is no right

to a jury trial as to that portion of the case, unlike the merits of the case (where there is a right

to a jury trial). See id. Wyatt and Ritza allow this court to resolve factual disputes, but only

with regard to the exhaustion issue. 

The San Mateo County Sheriff has an administrative appeal system for the Maguire

correctional facility. See Sanchez Decl., Exh. A. The first step in that appeal process is for the

inmate to make an effort at informal resolution with the staff member. If the problem cannot be

resolved at that level, the inmate may submit a written grievance form and give it to a deputy or

correctional officer. If the grievance is about a specific staff member, it goes to that staff

member; if the grievance complains about inappropriate staff behavior, the grievance goes

directly to the housing sergeant, who determines what course of action to take.

D. The Housing Sergeant will review, reply, or forward the grievance to MCF Watch

Commander (Lieutenant). . . .

1. The Housing Sergeant will be responsible for all grievances involving

living conditions, discipline and privileges.

2. The Housing Sergeant will contact, if necessary, any staff member

connected with the grievance and determine the appropriate course of

action. This may include a written response by the staff member. 

3. The Housing Sergeant will respond to the grievance, including any

Case 3:05-cv-02258-SI Document 41 Filed 07/23/07 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

comments from staff members. If applicable, all grievances are given to

the Watch Commander for review.

E. The Watch Commander should determine if the grievance needs additional

investigation[, and] will insure that the inmate receives a written response within

ten days, including the reasons if the grievance is denied.

F. If an inmate desires to appeal the Watch Commander's decision, he/she must be

directed to write a letter to the Detention Division Captain (Facility Commander),

who will review the grievance and the Watch Commander's response. The

Captain will give a written response to the prisoner within two weeks of receipt,

including the reasons if he/she denies the appeal. 

Id. The policy manual also allows inmates to grieve or appeal directly to the Watch Commander

or Detention Division Captain. Id. 

This action must be dismissed because Johnson did not exhaust his available

administrative remedies before he filed suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.

2002). Johnson's complaint alleged that defendants retaliated against him on April 4, 21, and

28, 2005. He filed a written grievance on April 5, 2005 concerning the April 4 incident.

Sanchez Decl., Exh. C. He filed a written grievance dated May 3, 2005 regarding the April 28,

2005 incident. Sanchez Decl., Exh. D. He did not receive the final response to his appeal until

August 4, 2005, more than two months after he filed his complaint in this action. Completion

of the administrative appeal process while this action was pending does not help Johnson

because the statute requires exhaustion before the action is filed. See Vaden v. Summerhill, 449

F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006). While there may be cases in which prison and jail authorities

completely fail to respond to an inmate's grievance for such a long time that an inmate can

assume that no response ever will be made, this is not such a case. Johnson filed his federal

complaint less than two months after the incidents complained of occurred. In fact, he tried to

obtain a response to his pending grievances just days before filing this action: on May 16 and

May 20, he asked for jail staff to respond to his earlier filed inmate grievances, but didn't wait

long for a response before filing his federal complaint on May 27, 2005. A response eventually

was sent to Johnson on August 4, 2005, but that was after Johnson's complaint was filed. His

complaint was premature. 

Case 3:05-cv-02258-SI Document 41 Filed 07/23/07 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Johnson argues that defendants are responsible for the documents not reaching him. In

light of a proof of service that documents were mailed, the court will not hold defendants

responsible for the failure of those documents to arrive in Johnson's cell. Defendants' noncompliance with the court order was in failing to put the correct documents in the mail on

November 16, 2006. The November 16, 2006 proof of service shows that the defendants sent

a replacement copy of their first motion to dismiss rather than of the September 29, 2006 motion

to dismiss, as the court had ordered. 

6

The entire action must be dismissed without prejudice because administrative remedies

were not exhausted as to any of the claims before this action was filed. 

B. Johnson’s Motion For Sanctions

Johnson moved for sanctions on the ground that defendants did not serve on him a

replacement copy of the motion to dismiss, as the court had ordered them to do. Although

defendants did not comply with the court-ordered deadline,2

 that failure was of no real

consequence to Johnson because he eventually did receive the replacement copy of the motion

to dismiss in sufficient time to prepare his opposition to the motion. Moreover, the court is

especially disinclined to grant a motion for sanctions that itself attempts to mislead the court, as

Johnson's motion does. Johnson asserts that "as of this date, 12-29-06, respondent's [sic] are 33

days beyond the court mandated time period" to send him the replacement copy of the motion

to dismiss. Motion For Sanctions, p. 2. That statement is not credible because Johnson's filings

submitted the same day actually cite to specific pages in the motion to dismiss, showing that he

had it in hand. See Motion To Amend (docket # 34), p. 2 (giving page and line cite to motion

to dismiss); Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendant's Unenumerated 12(b) Motion To Dismiss

(docket # 36), p. 2:20 (referring to and attaching part of Sanchez declaration that had been

submitted in support of defendants' Rule 12(b) motion). Johnson also suggests in his motion for

sanctions that the court ordered defendants to send him replacement copies of their motion as

well as copies of two court orders. Motion For Sanctions, p. 2; see also Motion Of Defense

Counsel's Non-Compliance of Court Order, p. 2:12-16. That is false, as the court had not

ordered defendants to send replacement copies of orders but only to send a replacement copy of

Case 3:05-cv-02258-SI Document 41 Filed 07/23/07 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the motion. Johnson's motion for sanctions is DENIED. (Docket # 35.) 

CONCLUSION

Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED for plaintiff's failure to exhaust

administrative remedies before filing this action. (Docket # 20.) Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions

is DENIED. (Docket # 35.) Plaintiff's motion to amend is GRANTED; the claim regarding the

April 21, 2005 incident is dismissed from this action. (Docket # 34.) Plaintiff's "motion of

compliance with court order," informing the court that plaintiff was not seeking another

extension of time, is DISMISSED as unnecessary. (Docket # 32.) 

This action is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new action in which he

asserts claims as to which administrative remedies have been exhausted. The clerk shall close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02258-SI Document 41 Filed 07/23/07 Page 7 of 7