Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00240/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00240-1/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

KIRELL TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. HEDGRPATH et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-240 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S

COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 5)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint on February 14, 2007, alleging that funds

that had been sent to him in the mail were never deposited into his prisoner trust account by prison

officials. On February 28, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for stay requesting that his case be held in

abeyance so that he could exhaust his administrative remedies. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:07-cv-00240-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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

B. Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life,

Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

C. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2007). The process is initiated 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, 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 order to satisfy section

1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to

filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

Plaintiff indicates in his motion for stay that he has not exhausted his administrative

remedies. See ,Doc. #5. Since exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, it is recommended

that plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice rather than stayed since he may be able to resolve

his case through the administrative process. Plaintiff may file another complaint if he exhausts his

administrative remedies and is not satisfied with the result. 

Plaintiff is advised that “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions,

with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must

Case 1:07-cv-00240-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court

may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that

could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will

ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed

it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not

the test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings

need suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin,

262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

Plaintiff is also advised that the Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,

or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell

v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right,

within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In

order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant with

some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights.

Case 1:07-cv-00240-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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

In the current complaint, plaintiff lists T. Hedepath, the Warden of Kern Valley State Prison,

and six other individuals who plaintiff identifies as John Doe as defendants. The plaintiff’s

complaint fails to articulate a constitutional basis for his claim and it does not link a specific person

to the alleged conduct. The court is not dismissing the complaint on that basis, but is merely

advising the plaintiff that he should keep the above principals in mind if he files a second complaint.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiff’s motion for stay be

DENIED. 

 The court FURTHER RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 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. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00240-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 09/13/07 Page 4 of 4