Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00589/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00589-8/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Bob Bejarano (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action on April 12, 2011. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint, filed on February 2, 2012, for claims of retaliation against Defendants Best and 

Bejarano.

On February 19, 2013, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss based 

on exhaustion. Plaintiff opposed the motion on April 8, 2013, and Defendants filed a reply on April 

15, 2013.1

 

1

 In Defendants’ February 19, 2013, notice, filed concurrently with their motion to dismiss, Plaintiff was provided with 

notice of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 

n. 14 (9th Cir. 2003).

BOB BEJARANO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11cv00589 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO STRIKE SURREPLY

(Document 60)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Document 50)

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 64 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 7
2

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

On April 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, in part, “Opposition to Defendants’ Best 

and Bejarano’s Reply.” Plaintiff also references moving for summary judgment. 

On May 3, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the pleading. Plaintiff did not oppose the 

motion.

I. MOTION TO STRIKE SURREPLY

Plaintiff’s April 16, 2013, filing addresses the arguments made in Defendants’ reply. The 

Court therefore construes this as a surreply.

The Local Rules of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not generally permit 

the filing of a surreply. See L.R. 230(l) (matter is generally submitted after movant files and serves 

reply). The Court did not request a surreply from Plaintiff. Moreover, the requirements for opposing 

a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust were provided to Plaintiff, in detail, in Defendants’ February 

19, 2013, notice. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike, filed May 3, 2013, is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s 

surreply (Document 59) is STRICKEN. 

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, “[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, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 (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, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits relating to prison 

life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002). 

The failure to exhaust in compliance with section 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense under 

which the defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 549 

U.S. at 216; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The failure to exhaust is subject 

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 64 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 7
3

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

to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, and in resolving the motion, the Court may look beyond the 

pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court 

concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Jones, 

549 U.S. at 223-24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2005).

B. Appeals Process

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance 

system for prisoners to appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy having an 

adverse effect on prisoners’ welfare. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1. Prior to January 28, 2011, the 

process was initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602 describing the problem and the action requested, 

tit. 15, § 3084.2(a), and appeal had to be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being 

appealed. Tit. 15, § 3084.6(c). Up to four levels of appeal may be involved, including the informal 

level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the Director’s 

Level. Tit. 15, § 3084.5. 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, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86, 126 

S.Ct. 2378 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

In this Circuit, the failure to exhaust may be excused where the administrative remedies are 

rendered effectively unavailable. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-23 (9th Cir. 2010); Nunez v. 

Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The regulations governing administrative remedy processes apply with equal force to inmates and 

prison officials, and thus, if an inmate complies with the procedural rules, but prison officials fail to 

respond in compliance with the rules or otherwise thwart the process, it becomes unavailable. Sapp, 

623 F.3d at 822-23; Nunez, 591 F.3d at 1224. 

This exception applies if Plaintiff can show “(1) that he actually filed a grievance or grievances 

that, if pursued through all levels of administrative appeals, would have sufficed to exhaust the claim 

that he seeks to pursue in federal court, and (2) that prison officials screened his grievance or 

grievances for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by applicable regulations.” Sapp, 623 F.3d at 

823-24.

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 64 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 7
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

C. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges that from February 17-20, 2010, Defendants 

Best and Bejarano placed him on contraband watch. During this time, Plaintiff states that he warned 

Defendants that he was “going to grievance them for harassing him.” Second Am. Compl. 5. On 

March 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form 602 against Defendants regarding the 

February contraband watch. From April 13-16, 2010, Defendants placed Plaintiff on a second 

contraband watch. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to this second contraband watch in 

retaliation for his March 9, 2010, grievance.

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that the appeal process was not complete. 

He states that he “kept trying to receive a First Level Response from CSATF/Corcoran State Prison 

but got denied erroneously as untimely.” Second Am. Compl. 3. 

D. Discussion

Defendants’ motion is based on their contention that Plaintiff never filed an inmate grievance 

related to the alleged retaliation in April 2010. In support, they submit the declarations of J. D. 

Lozano, Chief of the Office of Appeals (formerly, the Inmate Appeals Branch), and J. Cota, Appeals 

Coordinator at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran 

(“CSATF”). Chief Lozano declares that a search for Plaintiff’s name in the grievance system for 

appeals accepted and adjudicated for Director’s Level review, between January 2010 and January 

2011 at SATF and Calipatria State Prison, does not reveal any relating to the April 2010 incident. 

Lozano Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A. The records also do not reveal any appeals related to the April 2010 incident 

that were screened out at the Director’s Level between January 2010 and January 2011. Lozano Decl. 

¶ 9, Ex. A.

Similarly, Coordinator Cota declares that he searched CSATF records relating to appeals 

submitted between January 2010 and January 2011. His search revealed that Plaintiff submitted 602s 

on several occasions. Of these 602s, one was a group appeal related to the February 2010 contraband 

watch, submitted on March 9, 2010. Cota Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. A and B. There were no appeals 

submitted during this time related to retaliation in April 2010, nor were any such appeals screened out. 

Cota Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 64 Filed 06/24/13 Page 4 of 7
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

27

28

In his opposition, Plaintiff does not contest the fact that he did not complete the administrative 

remedies process. Rather, he argues that he tried repeatedly to receive a First Level response, but was 

unsuccessful. He contends that his appeal was incorrectly screened out as untimely, making the 

administrative remedy procedure unavailable to him. 

According to Plaintiff, he filed a 602 related to the April 2010 incident on May 2, 2010, “while 

at Calipatria State Prison.” Opp. 5. He contends that it was rejected by Calipatria on June 17, 2010, 

and he was told to send the 602 to CSATF. According to Plaintiff, CSATF then rejected the 602 on or 

about July 10, 2010, as untimely. Tit. 15, § 3084.6(c). At this point, Plaintiff began writing numerous 

letters to the Appeals Coordinator at CSATF, Warden Allison and Inmate Appeals Branch (“IAB”) 

Chief D. Foston. Each letter contained Plaintiff’s explanation as to why CSATF incorrectly rejected 

the appeal as untimely, along with Plaintiff’s request for a response at the First Level. 

The letters culminate with a May 5, 2011, letter from Chief Foston explaining that the 

complaint he submitted to the IAB in October 2010 was rejected on November 18, 2010, because 

Plaintiff failed to include a decision at the prior level.2 The letter further stated that Plaintiff failed to 

attach the July 2010 rejection letter, and despite Plaintiff’s assertions as to the existence of such a 

letter, the IAB contacted CSATF and was told that “there is no record of receiving a staff complaint 

appeal from [Plaintiff], or a staff complaint appeal forwarded by the CAL AC.” Chief Foston 

therefore concluded that Plaintiff “provided insufficient evidence to support [his] claim that the appeal 

was rejected/cancelled in error.” May 5, 2011, Letter, attached to Opp. 

However, despite Plaintiff’s description of events in his opposition, he has again failed to 

produce evidence of the July 2010 rejection by CSATF. Instead, he provides copies of his alleged 

letters and correspondence from the IAB. Interestingly, although Plaintiff has been able to provide 

copies of his letters, he has given the Court no explanation as to why he could not produce the July 

2010 notice from CSATF.

 

2

The IAB assigned this complaint “IAB# 1007745.” In conformity with Plaintiff’s documentation, the log submitted by 

Chief Lozano shows that IAB# 1007745 was received by the IAB on October 18, 2010, and screened out on November 18, 

2010. Lozano Decl., Ex. A. 

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 64 Filed 06/24/13 Page 5 of 7
6

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

The Court also notes that Plaintiff states that he filed the May 2, 2010, 602 while at Calipatria, 

and that on June 17, 2010, Calipatria told him to send the 602 directly to CSATF. However, Plaintiff 

submits a “CDC 602- Route Slip Receipt” that undermines his assertion. The receipt, allegedly signed 

by P. Alaniz at Calipatria, indicates that on May 5, 2010, the 602 was forwarded to “CSATF-Appeals 

Office.” One wonders why Plaintiff was allegedly told by Calipatria, on June 17, 2010, to send the 

appeal directly to CSATF when, according to Plaintiff’s exhibits, the appeal was already there. 

Given the evidence before the Court, including the Declarations of J. Lozano and J. D. Cota 

and Plaintiff’s own exhibits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide acceptable evidence 

that (1) he actually filed a grievance that, if pursued through all levels of administrative appeals, would 

have sufficed to exhaust the claim; and (2) that prison officials screened his grievance or grievances 

for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by applicable regulations.3 Sapp, 623 F.3d at 823-24.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed February 19, 2013, should be granted; and

2. This action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to 

exhaust.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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 

///

///

///

///

 

3

The evidence also includes a February 28, 2011, letter from the CSATF Appeals Coordinator explaining to Plaintiff that 

his “appeal has been cancelled” because the time limits for submitting the appeal have been exceeded. Feb. 28, 2011,

Letter, attached to Opp. As Defendants point out, however, there still exists no evidence that Plaintiff actually submitted a

timely appeal and this letter, dated ten months after the incident, does not demonstrate otherwise.

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 64 Filed 06/24/13 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 64 Filed 06/24/13 Page 7 of 7