Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06689/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06689-4/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

27

28 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on April 4, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO BISHOP,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KRAMER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-6689-AWI DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND THIS

ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 19)

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed

April 29, 2005, against defendants Kramer, Howard and Parkinson (“defendants”) for violation of

the Eighth Amendment based on alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. On

June 7, 2006, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b),

defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available

administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

1

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06689-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 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

2

B. Exhaustion Requirement

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). 

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative

defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The failure to exhaust nonjudicial

administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion,

rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza v. Int’l

Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curium)). In

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court

concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

C. Discussion

Plaintiff, alleges that he suffered a lower back injury and has not received proper medical

treatment for his medical needs. Defendants move to dismiss this action on the ground that plaintiff

did not exhaust the claim against him, as mandated by section 1997e(a). In support of their motion,

defendants submit evidence that the appeals office at Sierra Conservation Center where plaintiff is

incarcerated and the Inmate Appeals Branch at the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation have no record of an appeal filed by plaintiff concerning defendants’ alleged

Case 1:04-cv-06689-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 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

3

deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Grannis Dec. , ¶5 and ¶6, Clark Decl., ¶4 and ¶5. The

only grievance found was received prior to the filing of this lawsuit and dealt with a Correctional

Officer Lomeli allegedly disrespecting plaintiff on July 28, 2004. Clark Decl. ¶ 4. The appeal was

withdrawn at the inmate’s request. Id.

The Court finds that defendants have met their burden as the parties moving for dismissal.

The burden therefore shifts to plaintiff to set forth evidence demonstrating that he satisfied the

exhaustion requirement. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Nor does the

amended complaint demonstrate that he satisfied the exhaustion requirement. 

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff did not exhaust the available

administrative remedies concerning his claims against defendants. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed June 7, 2006, be

GRANTED and this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

the available administrative remedies. 

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

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

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 Recommendations.” 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 22, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06689-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 3