Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01597/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01597-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

JOHNNIE BROWN,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

D. M. MANTEL and T. VARIZ, 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-1597 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff contends that

defendants, appeals coordinators who answer prisoner grievances, failed to cause his legal

materials to be returned to him in time for him to use them in a pending habeas case. 

Defendants have now filed a motion to dismiss in which they contend that plaintiff failed to

exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff has opposed the motion and defendants have

replied. The motion is ready for ruling. 

DISCUSSION

I. Background

In his complaint plaintiff alleged that his legal materials were put into storage at

Salinas Valley State Prison on January 16, 2003, while he was away from the prison on a

temporary transfer. At that time he had a habeas petition pending in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. The transfer ceased to be temporary,

however, and over the next two years or so he was transferred from one prison to another

without being able to retrieve his papers. He alleges that he filed several administrative

appeals (grievances) which were ignored by defendants, and that even after relief was

ordered at the director’s level, defendants failed to provide it. 

Case 4:06-cv-01597-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of not having his papers he was unable to object to a

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in his habeas case, because he was unable

to determine what evidence was meant by citations to the record in the report and

recommendation, and that he was unable to make a showing of an arguable violation of his

constitutional rights in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. His papers were

eventually found and returned to him, but it was too late. 

II. Exhaustion

A. Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide

that "[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). Although once within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in prisoner

cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983, 988

(2002). All available remedies must now 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). Similarly, exhaustion is a prerequisite to all inmate suits about prison life, whether

they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege

excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 122 S. Ct. at 992. 

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." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). It

also provides its inmates the right to file administrative appeals alleging misconduct by

correctional officers. See id. § 3084.1(e). In order to exhaust available administrative

remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1)

informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second

Case 4:06-cv-01597-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third level appeal to the Director of

the California Department of Corrections. See id. § 3084.5; Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp.

1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). A final decision at the director’s level satisfied the exhaustion

requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. 

Nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense. Wyatt v Terhune, 315

F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir 2003). It should be treated as a matter of abatement and brought

in an “unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than [in] a motion for summary judgment.” 

Id. (citations omitted). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies under § 1997e(a), the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed

issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. If the court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted

California’s prison administrative process, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. 

Id. at 1120.

B. Analysis

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s administrative appeal which gave rise to this suit

– the one in which defendants allegedly failed to take prompt-enough action to get plaintiff’s

legal materials back to him – was not sufficient to exhaust because plaintiff did not pursue it

to the third and final level after his legal materials were returned, and that the grievance did

not specifically complain about legal papers. 

Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a grievance process or any constitutional right

to an answer or to any particular answer to his grievances. Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th

Cir. 1991) (although there certainly is a right to petition government for redress of

grievances (a First Amendment Right), there is no right to a response or any particular

action). Hence plaintiff’s only cognizable claim is that defendants hindered his access to

the courts – that defendants’ failure to order that his legal papers be returned to him

violated his right to access to the court to litigate his habeas case. That is the claim that

plaintiff had to exhaust. When this is borne in mind, it is clear that defendants are right –

plaintiff did not exhaust this claim.

///

Case 4:06-cv-01597-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

In response to defendants’ evidence that he did not exhaust through the third and

final formal level any grievance involving a claim even remotely similar to the one pursued

here (access to the courts), petitioner contends that his grievance carrying log number

PBSP 04-00248 was sufficient to exhaust. This is the grievance that the two defendants

here allegedly did not handle properly, causing him not to receive his legal papers back in

time to use them in his habeas case. However, a review of the grievance, responses, and

the record establishes that plaintiff did not ever say that the property he wanted to retrieve

included legal papers, or that he needed it to adequately litigate a pending case. Instead,

he repeatedly referred to it as “property” or “personal property.” The grievance thus was

not sufficient to exhaust this claim, even leaving aside the question of whether plaintiff

pursued it as far as could have, because it did not present the claim advanced here – that

plaintiff was without legal papers necessary for a pending case. Moreover, it does not

appear from the record that plaintiff exhausted even the insufficient claim through the third

and final formal level of administrative review. Accordingly, defendants have established

that plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss (document number 16 on the docket) is GRANTED. The

clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.06\BROWN597.MDSMSS.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-01597-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/14/07 Page 4 of 4