Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06069/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06069-8/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KORY HUNZIKER, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6069 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’

vs. MOTION TO DISMISS BE DENIED 

D. ADAMS, et al., [Doc. 46]

Defendants.

 /

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Kory Hunziker (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed November 2, 2004, against defendants Adams, Yates, Espinosa and Cuevas for

supervisory liability and against Jennings, Cunningham and Burnias for failing to protect plaintiff from

serious harm, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On July 11, 2005, pursuant to the unenumerated

portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 12(b)(6), defendants Espinosa and Yates filed a

motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies and

that the complaint should be dismissed as to defendants Adams, Cuevas, Espinosa and Yates because

plaintiff has failed to state cognizable claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed an

opposition on August 1, 2005 and defendants replied on August 5, 2005. 

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 66 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 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

2

II. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

A. Legal Standard

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 third

formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” See Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5. 

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. 

B. Discussion

Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on November 2, 2004, and it is proceeding on his claims

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 66 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 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

3

that defendants Adams, Yates, Cuevas and Espinosa, in their capacities as supervisory personnel,

implemented an ineffective integration policy of releasing known gang affiliates into the general

population which caused plaintiff’s serious injuries in violation of his rights under the Eighth

Amendment. 

In the motion to dismiss, defendants Espinosa and Yates argue they are entitled to dismissal

because plaintiff failed to exhaust. These defendants concede that plaintiff filed an inmate appeal against

defendants Adams, Cuevas, Jennings, Cunningham and Burnias and that this appeal was denied at the

Director’s level. However, they contend that plaintiff has not filed any inmate appeals against them

(Espinosa and Yates) and therefore has not exhausted the inmate appeals process as to the claims against

them. In support of their contentions, defendants submit the Declaration of N. Grannis, the Chief of the

Inmate Appeals Branch. Mr. Grannis states that plaintiff filed one inmate appeal, log no. SATF - 03-

00623, to the Director’s Level regarding defendants Adams, Burnias, Cuevas, Cunningham and

Jennings’ alleged deliberate indifference to his safety and failure to protect which he alleges resulted in

an attack on him on November 29, 2002, and that these defendants failed to implement policies which

would prevent these attacks from occurring. Declaration of N. Grannis in Support of Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 9. Mr. Grannis states that this appeal was denied at the Director’s Level on

February 4, 2004. Id. Mr. Grannis further states that plaintiff has not filed an appeal at the third level

alleging that either defendant Yates or Espinosa was involved in the implementation of the policies that

he alleged resulted in his injuries on November 29, 2002. Id. at ¶ 10. Mr. Grannis attaches a copy of

appeal log no. SATF -03-00623 with a copy of the Director’s Level decision to his declaration. Id.,

Attachment 1. Mr. Grannis also attaches the Inmate Appeals Branch log of all appeals submitted to the

Director’s Level by plaintiff. Id., Attachment 2. 

In his opposition, plaintiff contends that the exhaustion requirement has been satisfied as to all

defendants. Plaintiff contends that he intended to include defendants Espinosa and Yates in his inmate

appeal as “subordinate administrative officials” but he did not know their names at the time he filed the

appeal. He thereafter became aware of their names before filing this action. 

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

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 66 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 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

4

which constitutional rights were violated by which actions or omissions. Identification in the inmate

appeal of each defendant by name is not necessary for exhaustion to occur. Butler v. Rianda, 387 F.3d

1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2005). The touchstone that has been applied by this court is whether the plaintiff

has, using the administrative appeal process provided by the Department of Corrections, placed prison

officials on notice as to the facts at issue in his claim against the defendants. 

In this action, plaintiff alleges that defendants Burnias, Cunningham and Jennings failed to

protect him from a physical attack by Fresno Bulldog inmates on November 29, 2002. Plaintiff further

alleges that defendants Adams, Cuevas, Espinosa and Yates implemented an ineffective integration

policy of placing known gang affiliates into the general population, which caused his serious injuries.

Although plaintiff did identify defendants Yates or Espinosa by name in the appeal, plaintiff was not

required in the appeal form to name every involved party. Plaintiff availed himself of the administrative

process when he completed the appeal form and set forth the facts therein that form the basis of his

claims in this action. In his appeal, plaintiff claimed that the administration, “failed to implement

policies which would prevent further attacks from occurring.” He also asserted that “[t]he action and

inaction of the Warden and the Administration on C-Yard is directly responsible for the ongoing pattern

of violence here on C-Yard at SATF/SP Corcoran.” In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Butler,

the court finds that plaintiff’s inmate appeal was sufficient to grieve his claims against defendants

Espinosa and Yates. Butler, 397 F.3d at 1183. 

III. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 

A. Legal Standard

“The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v. California Dept.

of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co.

v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable

to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen,

395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). The federal system is one of notice pleading.

Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 (2002). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading

standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 66 Filed 11/30/05 Page 4 of 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

5

actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to

Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at

512. 

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set

of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. Discovery and summary

judgment motions - not motions to dismiss - “define disputed facts” and “dispose of unmeritorious

claims.” Id. at 512. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the

pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353

F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin

v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the opposing party

on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). A motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff

can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 

B. Discussion

The court has a statutory duty to screen complaints in cases such as this and dismiss any claims

that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. Given this requirement, the court is disinclined to view with favor a subsequent motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim. The instant motion is no exception. 

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s allegations against Warden Adams, Chief Associate Warden

J. Yates; Associate Warden B. Espinosa; and Captain Cuevas fail to state any claim upon which relief

may be granted because they cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability and there is no

casual connection between their conduct and plaintiff’s alleged constitutional violation. Defendants

argue that plaintiff has failed to allege any facts showing that these defendants directly participated in

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 66 Filed 11/30/05 Page 5 of 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

6

the modified release of the inmates or that the reintegration policy was ineffective thereby leading to his

assault and injury. 

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their

employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be

specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589

F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To show a prima facie case of

supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege facts indicating that supervisory defendants either: personally

participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act

to prevent them; or promulgated or implemented a policy "so deficient that the policy itself is a

repudiation of constitutional rights" and is "the moving force of the constitutional violation." Hansen

v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Defendants Adams, Cuevas, Espinosa and Yates are supervisory personnel. 

Plaintiff alleges these defendants implemented an ineffective integration policy of known gang

affiliates into the general population despite their knowledge of the ongoing pattern of violent assaults

which ultimately led to and caused plaintiff’s serious injuries. As discussed, the federal system is one

of notice pleading and a motion to dismiss is not the appropriate procedure to dispose of unmeritorious

claims. Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Adams, Espinosa, Yates and Cuevas are sufficient to

meet the minimal notice pleading standard. Whether or not plaintiff will ultimately prevail on these

claims is not at issue. Plaintiff’s pleadings clearly put defendants on notice of the claims against them.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’ motion to

dismiss, filed July 11, 2005, be denied.

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 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

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 66 Filed 11/30/05 Page 6 of 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

7

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 29, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 66 Filed 11/30/05 Page 7 of 7