Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00270/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00270-4/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

Although the name “Vaughn” is in the caption, it appears that the correct name for this 1

defendant is “Voong.” The correct name for this defendant is reflected in plaintiff’s August 24,

2004 response to the court’s order to show cause and in defendants’ motion to dismiss.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRELL O’NEAL

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0270 LKK CMK P

vs.

SGT. VAUGHN , et al., 1

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302(b)(21). Defendants’ June 28, 2006 motion to dismiss is

before the court. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00270-LKK -CMK Document 32 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff alleges that, due to a seizure disorder, he had written medical clearance,

also known as a “chrono,” for a bottom bunk. Despite plaintiff’s chrono for a bottom bunk,

defendants placed him on a top bunk. Plaintiff subsequently had a seizure and fell off the top

bunk, causing injuries. 

Plaintiff submitted his complaint, along with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis, to this court on February 5, 2004. On August 6, 2004, the court issued an order

granting plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Because it appeared that plaintiff had

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing the complaint, the court issued a

second order on August 6, 2004, directing the plaintiff to provide a written explanation of his

apparent failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing in federal court. 

Plaintiff responded on August 24, 2004. 

Plaintiff’s August 24, 2004 response revealed the following. On November 28,

2003, plaintiff submitted an appeal alleging that he sustained injuries when he fell from a bunk

bed during a seizure and that he should not have been assigned a top bunk. He requested an

investigation, full accommodation with medical appliances for his injuries, medical attention and

money damages. On December 1, 2003, plaintiff was told to resubmit the appeal with a copy of

his lower bunk chrono. 

Plaintiff returned the appeal with the copy of his lower bunk chrono on December

4, 2004 and on January 21, 2004, the appeal was denied at the first level of review.

On January 23, 2004, plaintiff appealed to the second level, requested that his

appeal be granted in its entirety. Prison officials notified plaintiff that the time to resolve his

appeal was extended from February 25, 2004, until March 1, 2004. On March 2, 2004, the appeal

was partially granted in that it was determined that plaintiff was receiving proper medical

attention but the other allegations were unsubstantiated.

///

Case 2:04-cv-00270-LKK -CMK Document 32 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

On March 11, 2004, plaintiff appealed to the director’s level. He requested his

appeal be granted in its entirety and sought an internal investigation because prison officials had

misrepresented the facts surrounding the events of November 23, 2003. The appeal was denied

June 10, 2004. 

In an order filed November 29, 2004, the court noted that plaintiff had submitted

his complaint on February 5, 2004 and that the court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in

forma pauperis on August 6, 2004. The court acknowledged that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires

that a prisoner may bring no civil rights action until he has exhausted all his available

administrative remedies, and the court noted that, under Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741

(2001), the exhaustion requirement was mandatory. However, the court reasoned that review of

plaintiff’s appeal on the director’s level was complete on August 6, 2004 when the court granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and this action commenced. Accordingly, in its November 29,

2004 order, the court held that plaintiff had exhausted available administrative remedies prior to

bringing this action. 

By findings and recommendations filed January 20, 2006, the court declined to

reconsider the court’s November 29, 2004 order and recommended that defendant’s motion to

dismiss this action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies be denied. (Doc. 24.) The

findings and recommendations were adopted on March 9, 2006. (Doc. 26.) 

Defendants filed a motion to stay this action on March 16, 2006. The court issued

findings and recommendations on March 24, 2006 recommending that the action be stayed on the

grounds that the question of when a suit is “brought” or “commenced” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 was pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Vaden v. Summerhill, Case No.

05-15650. The Ninth Circuit has since decided Vaden, holding that a complaint is “brought” by a

prisoner when he submits it to the court. See Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050-51 (9th

Cir. 2006). Defendants have renewed their motion to dismiss this action on the grounds that

plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. By separate order,

Case 2:04-cv-00270-LKK -CMK Document 32 Filed 10/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

the court vacates its March 24, 2006 findings and recommendations and now considers

defendants’ June 28, 2006 motion to dismiss. 

II. Discussion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat.

1321 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18, 28 and 42 U.S.C.), requires that

prisoners exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to bringing suit in federal court. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Administrative exhaustion rules have two main purposes. See

McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145 (1992). The first is to protect an administrative

agency’s authority by giving the agency the first opportunity to resolve a controversy before a

court intervenes in the dispute. See id. The second is to promote judicial efficiency by either

resolving the dispute outside of the courts or by producing an administrative record that can aid

the court in processing the plaintiff’s claim. See id. The Ninth Circuit recently clarified that a

civil rights action was “brought” when the complaint was tendered to the clerk of the district

court instead of when it was subsequently filed or when the district court granted plaintiff’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis. See Vaden, 449 F.3d at 1050. 

In the present case, the record reveals that plaintiff tendered his complaint to the

district court clerk on February 5, 2004. He did not exhaust his prison administrative remedies

until June 10, 2004, nearly three months later. (See Doc. 29, Grannis Decl. ¶ 3-4.) It is clear

from the record that plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to sending his

complaint to the district court. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that defendants’

motion to dismiss be granted and that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (doc. 29) be granted and that plaintiff’s

complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Case 2:04-cv-00270-LKK -CMK Document 32 Filed 10/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

 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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 19, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00270-LKK -CMK Document 32 Filed 10/20/06 Page 5 of 5