Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05033/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05033-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

MICHAEL BALZARINI, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

E. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:01-cv-05033-AWI-WMW-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 82)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 78)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Michael Balzarini (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 23, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recomended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be

granted and this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. The

Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed objections. 

Case 1:01-cv-05033-AWI-WMW Document 98 Filed 02/15/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court agrees with the recommendation that

Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted.

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). 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). Exhaustion must

occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The California Department of Corrections has an

administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under

the department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental

decision, action, condition, or policy which they can reasonably

demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id.

at 3084.1(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the

informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and

Case 1:01-cv-05033-AWI-WMW Document 98 Filed 02/15/06 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

third formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Cal.

Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5 (2004).

Here, Defendants offer evidence that Plaintiff did not

appeal the issues underlying this action prior to filing suit to

the Director’s Level. Normally evidence only showing that a

prisoner has not had an appeal resolved at the Director’s Level

is insufficent to find that he did not exhaust administrative

remedies because pursuit of an appeal through the Director's

Level of review is not necessarily required for exhaustion to

have occured. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir.2005). 

“[A] prisoner need not press on to exhaust further levels of

review once he has either received all ‘available’ remedies at an

intermediate level of review or been reliably informed by an

administrator that no remedies are available.” Id.

In his objections, Plaintiff states that he was not required

to exhaust his administrative remedies to the Director’s Level

because his appeal was granted at the lower level. Specifcially,

Plaintiff states that he had “already prevailed on [his]

grievance requesting that [he] be seen by a specialist, and

further appeal would not have given [him] any additional relief.” 

Satisfaction of the exhaustion requirement does not require that

inmates draft grievances with the precision of an attorney,

laying out every fact, identifying every defendant by name, and

identifying which constitutional rights were violated by which

actions or omissions. However, satisfaction of the exhaustion

requirement requires that inmates, in their grievances, place

prison personnel on fair notice as to the events that

subsequently give rise to suit. In this action, Plaintiff seeks

Case 1:01-cv-05033-AWI-WMW Document 98 Filed 02/15/06 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

to hold Defendants liable for being deliberately indifference to

his medical needs. Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to

give him medication that would have been effective in treating

Plaintiff’s “HCV” condition. Plaintiff claims that without the

medication he only has a “50-50 change of living past the year

2004" and he has been in pain. The grant of an appeal to see a

specilist is not sufficient to show exhaustion of a claim

regarding Defendants’ deliberate difference to Plaintiff’s

medical needs. There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s desire of

adequate medical care was addressed when he was given permission

to see a specialist. Because the only lower level appeal

Plaintiff concedes was granted concerned seeing a specialist,

Plaintiff did not exhausted his remedies prior to filing suit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 23, 2005,

are ADOPTED;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3. This action is CONCLUDED in its entirety; and,

4. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05033-AWI-WMW Document 98 Filed 02/15/06 Page 4 of 4