Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01423/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01423-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

1

 Deputy Attorney General Sara Ugaz represents and has

acknowledged service on behalf of Defendants Glenn and Godinez, who

are the only Defendants moving for dismissal. Although in its April

21, 2006 Order the Court ordered the complaint to be served on

Defendants Ramerez, Holmes, Allen, Ortiz, and Melrow, counsel states

that to her knowledge none of them has been served.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ODESSA BROWN II,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, 

et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1423 CW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 72, 82, 86)

Plaintiff William Odessa Brown II, a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed

this pro se civil rights action when he was incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison (SVSP). In an Order dated January 19, 2006,

the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis

and found that Plaintiff presented a cognizable claim of deliberate

indifference to his safety. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims

related to false charges, property loss, and the administrative

appeals process. On April 21, 2006, the Court issued an order for

service of Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim. On June 20,

2006, Defendants filed their answer. 

Before the Court is Defendants' motion pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a).1 Plaintiff has filed an opposition, and

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 13
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

Defendants have filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below,

Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The Court summarized the facts alleged by Plaintiff as

follows:

In his first amended complaint Plaintiff alleges

that on August 2, 2004, he was placed in administrative

segregation (ad seg) based on allegations of sexual

misconduct with other inmates by a confidential

informant. Plaintiff was placed in ad seg for security

reasons while the accusations were investigated. When

Plaintiff was moved into ad seg his property was removed

from his cell but he was not issued any receipts. 

Subsequently, Plaintiff received only part of his

property back. 

On August 12, 2004, Plaintiff was told there was not

enough evidence to support the allegations of misconduct

against him and he was moved to a cell in Facility B. 

The prior occupant of the cell had been removed by force

earlier in the day and officers had used pepper spray

during the process. Plaintiff alleges that all of the

items in the cell, including the bedding and the walls,

were covered in toxic residue but he and his cellmate

were refused cleaning supplies and new mattresses for

several days. As a result, Plaintiff suffered from an

"unbearable burning" of his eyes, nose, throat and

genitalia. 

Plaintiff attempted to file administrative appeals

on the matters of his missing property and exposure to

the pepper spray but the appeals coordinators repeatedly

returned his appeals to him for technical reasons and

would not send them to the next level for review. Thus,

Plaintiff concedes that he has not exhausted his

administrative remedies but faults the Defendants for his

failure to do so.

(Jan. 19, 2006 Order at 1-2.)

DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) 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

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 13
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

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,

534 U.S. 516, 524 (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 prisoner

suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances

or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or

some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532. 

The PLRA's exhaustion requirement cannot be satisfied "by

filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective

administrative grievance or appeal." Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,

___, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006). "The text of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) strongly suggests that the PLRA uses the term

'exhausted' to mean what the term means in administrative law,

where exhaustion means proper exhaustion." Id. at 2387. 

Therefore, the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper

exhaustion. Id. "Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an

agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no

adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some

orderly structure on the course of its proceedings." Id. at 2386

(footnote omitted); Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 922-23 (2007)

(compliance with prison grievance procedures is required by the

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 13
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

PLRA to "properly exhaust"). The level of detail necessary in a

grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from

system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison's

requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of

proper exhaustion. Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 923. 

The State of California provides its prisoners 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 them the right to file appeals alleging misconduct

by correctional officers and officials. 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 602 inmate

appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or

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

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). 

Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision from the

Director's level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement

under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. 

Non-exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense

which should be brought by defendants in an unenumerated motion to

dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). However, a complaint

may be dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust if a prisoner

"conce[des] to nonexhaustion" and "no exception to exhaustion

applies." Id. at 1120. 

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 13
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

 Certain pages of Plaintiff's amended complaint are not

numbered; therefore, the Court has renumbered it starting with "1" on

the first page.

3

 Plaintiff post-dated his appeal because the record shows that

the 602 appeal was received on August 27, 2004. Plaintiff concedes

that this was an "error in date or filing on behalf of the Plaintiff."

(Jan. 22, 2007 Opp'n at 3.)

4

 Plaintiff's motion to submit exhibits in opposition to

Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket no. 86) is GRANTED.

5

In the present case, Defendants correctly raise non-exhaustion

in an unenumerated motion to dismiss. Defendants argue that

Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies

prior to the filing of his complaint as mandated by § 1997e(a). 

Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to submit a 602 inmate

appeal relating to his deliberate indifference claim because SVSP's

Appeals Coordinators "refused to accept the plaintiff's appeals." 

(Am. Compl. at 8.)2

 Plaintiff claims that he "sent his appeals on

the following dates, 29 Aug. 2004, 24 Sept. 2004, 27 Oct. 2004, and

on 18 Nov., 2004" but "the appeal was never returned or filed after

the 18th November 2004 submission." (Id.)

The record shows that Plaintiff filed a 602 appeal form dated

August 29, 20043 relating to his ad seg placement, pepper spray

exposure, and lost property. (Apr. 18, 2007 Opp'n Attach., 602

Appeal Form dated August 29, 2004.)4 The 602 appeal form was

stamped "DELIVERED" on September 24, 2004, October 5, 2004 and

October 27, 2004, and it was stamped "REC'D" on August 27, 2004,

October 6, 2004 and September 28, 2004. (Id.)

On August 27, 2004, Plaintiff's 602 appeal was screened out by

D. M. Mantel, former SVSP Appeals Coordinator. (Am. Compl. Ex.

"Appeals," First Notice on Inmate/Parolee Appeals Screening Form at

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 13
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

5

 The page numbers written on Plaintiff's exhibits are inaccurate

and, at times, illegible. Furthermore, Plaintiff sometimes puts two

page numbers for each document. Therefore, the Court will note both

page numbers if they are legible.

6

 ASU stands for the Administrative Segregation Unit.

6

"42" and "58.")5 According to Mantel, Plaintiff's 602 appeal was

being returned to him because it was "unclear" and it "contain[ed]

more than 1 additional page." (Id.) Mantel also instructed

Plaintiff to "be brief." (Id.) The Inmate/Parolee Appeals

Screening Form was delivered to Plaintiff on September 24, 2004,

and his 602 appeal form was returned to him on that same date. 

(Id.) 

On September 24, 2007, Plaintiff resubmitted his 602 appeal

and attached a memo stating, "all supporting documents have been

remove [sic] per the oder [sic] of the Appeals Coordinator CC II

D.M. Mantel." (Am. Compl. Ex. "Appeals," Pl.'s Sept. 24, 2007 Memo

at "45" and "60.") 

On September 28, 2004, Mantel responded with a two-page

memorandum relating to Plaintiff's "multiple appeals." (Am. Compl.

Ex. "Appeals," Mantel's Sept. 28, 2004 Memo at "45" - "46.") 

Referring to the resubmitted 602 appeal, Mantel noted: 

602 #1 is a multi issue appeal.

Part 1 is re: ASU6 placement.

Part 2 is re: property.

Part 3 is re: the condition of the cell in ASU 

when you arrived.

You must limit 1 issue per 602.

(Id. at "45" (footnote added).) 

On October 6, 2004 and November 1, 2004, Mantel issued second

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 13
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

7

 It is not clear from the record which reasons were included in

the second notice and which were in the third notice.

8

 The Court notes that the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Screening Form

also has a received stamp, "REC'D NOV - 1 2004." (Am. Compl. Ex.

"Appeals," Inmate/Parolee Appeals Screening Form at "47" and "61.")

The other screening form delivered to Plaintiff on September 24, 2004

has no received stamp. (Id., Inmate/Parolee Appeals Screening Form

at "42" and "58.") The parties do not explain this inconsistency, and

there is no declaration from Mantel explaining what was received on

November 1, 2004.

7

and third notices on the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Screening Form,

stating that Plaintiff's 602 appeal was being returned to him

because, in addition to the reasons in the first notice, the 602

appeal "contain[ed] more than 1 issue."7

 (Am. Compl. Ex.

"Appeals," Second and Third Notices on Inmate/Parolee Appeals

Screening Form at "47" and "61.") Mantel added, "Insults are not

necessary. Please follow directions." (Id.) The second and third

notices were delivered to Plaintiff on October 27, 2004 and

November 17, 2004, respectively.8

 (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that on October 27, 2004, he filed a

separate 602 appeal form for each of his claims. He attached a

memo to the appeals, stating:

The enclosed documents are being returned to your office

as instructed. I have signed all of the documents but

they have not been dated due to you did not make it clear

as to what date you want to file the Appeals. I also

have enclosed the supporting documents as well. You can

use what you want to use and return what is not needed. 

Aply [sic] the supporting documents as needed, they have

been provided for you.

This is the best way I see fit to have my Appeals filed

and addressed.

(Apr. 18, 2007 Opp'n Attach., Memo dated October 27, 2004.) The

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 13
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

9

 The Court notes that the "REC'D NOV - 1 2004" stamp on

Plaintiff's memo is identical to the "REC'D NOV - 1 2004" stamp on the

Inmate/Parolee Appeals Screening Form. (Am. Compl. Ex. "Appeals,"

Inmate/Parolee Appeals Screening Form at "47" and "61.")

8

memo was stamped "REC'D NOV - 1 2004."9 (Id.) One of the three

attached 602 inmate appeal forms relates to Plaintiff's deliberate

indifference claim, and it is dated October 27, 2004. (Apr. 18,

2007 Opp'n Attach., 602 Appeal Form (relating to the Aug. 13, 2004

incident) dated October 27, 2004.) There are no "DELIVERED" or

"REC'D" stamps on this 602 appeal form. (Id.) Plaintiff claims

that his appeal was "rejected by D. M. Mantel and/or T. Variz." 

(Opp'n at 4.)

On November 18, 2004, Plaintiff resubmitted his appeals and

directed the Appeals Coordinator to "attach the supporting

documents as you see fit and return what you don't need for the

appeal issue." (Am. Compl. Ex. "Appeals," Pl.'s letter to Appeals

Office dated November 18, 2004 at "72.") Plaintiff claims "the

appeal was never returned or filed after the 18th November 2004

submission." (Am. Compl. at 8.) 

Plaintiff alleges he "submitted his complaint with the Warden

of the institution on November 21, 2004." (Id.; Am. Compl. Ex.

"Exhaustion," Plaintiff's Nov. 21, 2004 letter to "J. Woodward" at

"6.") However, he alleges that "the appeals were never addressed

nor filed or returned from this office, or forwarded to the Appeals

office." (Am. Compl. at 8.) 

Plaintiff also sent copies of the appeals to CDCR Chief of the

Inmate Appeals Branch N. Grannis on November 24, 2004. (Am. Compl.

at 8.) Plaintiff claims that on February 5, 2005, Grannis

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 8 of 13
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

9

"returned the appeal" and that it "was not addressed" because

"[t]he Chief of Inmate Appeals refused to accept the plaintiffs

[sic] appeals." (Am. Compl. at 8.) The record shows that Grannis

sent Plaintiff a letter dated February 5, 2005 stating, "[t]his

appeal should be submitted directly to the Appeals Coordinator for

review and appropriate action." (Am. Compl. Ex. "Exhaustion,"

Grannis's February 5, 2005 letter to Plaintiff at "7.") 

Plaintiff filed a complaint with the California Victim

Compensation and Government Claims Board (Board) on February 24,

2005. (Am. Compl. at 8; Am. Compl. Ex. "Exhaustion," Pl.'s Board

Claim Form at "26" to "28.") Plaintiff claims that his Board Claim

is "still pending." (Am. Compl. at 8.) In a letter dated March

14, 2005, the Board stated, "Board staff recommends the claim be

rejected because the claim raises complex issues of fact and law

that should be resolved through formal legal action." (Am. Compl.

Ex. "Exhaustion," Board's Response dated Mar. 14, 2005 at "30.") 

In a letter from the Board dated April 21, 2005, Plaintiff was

informed that there would be a Board meeting about his claim on May

2, 2005 and that he would be receiving written notification of the

Board's decision within three weeks of the meeting. (Am. Compl.

Ex. "Exhaustion," Board's Response dated Apr. 21, 2005.) There is

nothing further in the record informing the Court of the Board's

decision.

On March 27, 2005, Plaintiff sent a letter to the CDCR, ATTN:

"J. Woodward," stating that his claim has "not been addressed or

resolved" and he was giving notice that Plaintiff was going to sue

"J. Woodward," the CDCR, and SVSP for "not handling the issues that

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 9 of 13
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

10 Defendants have only attached Medina's declaration to their

renewed motion to dismiss; therefore, the Court refers to Grannis's

and Variz's declarations previously submitted with the original motion

to dismiss (docket nos. 51, 52).

10

remains [sic] unsolved." (Am. Compl. Ex. "Exhaustion," Pl.'s

letter to "J. Woodward" dated Mar. 27, 2005 at "23.")

In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants have filed

declarations by Grannis as well as SVSP Appeals Coordinators Eloy

Medina and T. Variz.10 

According to Variz, "[t]he Appeal's Coordinator's Office at

Salinas Valley State Prison has no record that inmate Brown

submitted the inmate appeal that is attached to his Complaint and

dated October 27, 2004. . . ." (Variz Decl. ¶ 5.) He adds, "I do

not believe that inmate Brown actually submitted this appeal to our

office because it is missing the date stamp and category number

that we put on all appeals submitted to our office, even the ones

that are screened out." (Id.)

Grannis reviews all appeals filed with the Director, the

highest level of appeal available to California prisoners. 

(Grannis Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) Grannis attests that a search of the

database containing records of all administrative appeals filed

with the Director was conducted and that the search produced proof

that Plaintiff has exhausted a total of seventeen inmate appeals. 

(Id. at ¶ 3.) Of these appeals, Grannis states that Plaintiff has

exhausted three inmate appeals arising out of SVSP in 2004. (Id.

at ¶ 4.) According to Grannis, "[n]one of the three exhausted

inmate appeal deal with Plaintiff's exposure to pepper spray on or

around August 13, 2004." (Id.)

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 10 of 13
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

11

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that

he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his

deliberate indifferent claim prior to filing this suit. Even

accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, he failed to complete

the administrative review process in accordance with SVSP's

applicable procedural rules. 

Plaintiff's initial appeal dated August 29, 2004 relating to

his deliberate indifference claim failed to comply with SVSP's

rules for grievances because it contained more than one issue. 

While Plaintiff claims that on October 27, 2004 he resubmitted the

appeal containing only his deliberate indifference claim, the

actual 602 appeal form lacks a received date stamp or other

acknowledgment that it was received or processed by Defendants or

other SVSP staff. In contrast, multiple stamps appear on the

August 29, 2004 appeal form, which was acknowledged as having been

received by SVSP prison officials. The Court notes that the memo

attached to the October 27, 2004 appeal form has a received stamp,

but that stamp appears to be traced and does not look like the

received stamps on Plaintiff's August 29, 2004 appeal form. 

Furthermore, the declarations from SVSP prison officials state that

there is no record that his October 27, 2004 602 appeal was ever

received. 

Even assuming that Plaintiff's October 27, 2004 appeal was

received and did satisfy the requirements at the informal level of

review, Plaintiff does not allege or establish that he exhausted

the three remaining levels of review applicable to his claims. 

Plaintiff admits that after receiving no response to his appeal, he

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 11 of 13
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.05\Brown1423.MTD.frm 12

filed complaints with Grannis, the Board and the CDCR. Even after

being directed to go through SVSP's administrative grievance

process by Grannis, he did not do so. Accordingly, the Court finds

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his deliberate indifference claim

and his amended complaint must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in

its entirety. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 72) is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for

failure to exhaust. Plaintiff may refile his claim if he is able

to exhaust his administrative remedies in compliance with Title 15

of the California Code of Regulations § 3084. 

2. Plaintiff's motion to submit exhibits in opposition to

Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket no. 86) is GRANTED.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance

with this Order, terminate all pending motions as moot, including

the document entitled "Petitioner's Motion for Acknowledgment

and/or Certificate of Service Receipts" (docket no. 82), and close

the file. 

4. This Order terminates Docket nos. 72, 82 and 86.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/31/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 12 of 13
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.05\Brown1423.MTD.frm 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BROWN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-01423 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 31, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Sara Ugaz

Attorney General’s Office

Correctional Law Section

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

William Odessa Brown K-93463

CAL

P.O. Box 5002

Calipatria, CA 92233-5002

Dated: March 31, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-01423-CW Document 99 Filed 03/31/08 Page 13 of 13