Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00502/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00502-9/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

 Identified as Hogeine in the complaint. 1

 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 2

on December 8, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 17.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS MERRIDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00502-OWW-NEW (DLB)

PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED, AND THIS

ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

(Doc. 20)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Dennis Merrida (“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 complaint, filed March 6, 2006, against defendant Holguin (“defendant”) for violating 1

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by intentionally burning plaintiff with hot water. On March

22, 2007, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 

Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 1, 2007.2

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00502-OWW -LJO Document 24 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 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

2

B. 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). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (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 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all

prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (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. Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921; 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

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2007). The process is initiated by

submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(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.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days

of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the

Case 1:06-cv-00502-OWW -LJO Document 24 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 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

 Plaintiff’s verified complaint constitutes an opposing affidavit. 

3 Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 948, 759-60 (9th

Cir. 2006).

3

informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). 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, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006);

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. Defendant argues that he is entitled to dismissal because

plaintiff failed to exhaust the inmate appeals process prior to filing suit. In support of his motion,

defendant submits evidence that after receiving a second level response, plaintiff failed to pursue

his appeal to the third and final level of review. (Doc. 20, Castillo Dec. ¶6; Grannis Dec., ¶¶9,

10.) 

Defendant has met his burden as the party moving for dismissal. The burden therefore

shifts to plaintiff to set forth evidence demonstrating that he exhausted the available

administrative remedies. 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he did not send his appeal to the Director’s Level of

review because the appeal was partially granted. (Doc. 1, pg. 2.) In his unverified opposition, 3

plaintiff argues that the available administrative remedies were exhausted by filing a State Board

of Control claim, and because his inmate appeal requesting an investigation was granted when

his appeal went to the second level of review. (Doc. 23, 1:21-27.) Plaintiff also argues that his

witnesses were intimidated and the environment is very hostile, causing inmates to fear

proceeding. (Id., 1:28-2:3).

“[Proper] exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary,” Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at

2382, and “[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other

critical procedural rules . . . ,” id. at 2386. Further, “[a]ll ‘available’ remedies must now be

exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and

effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5).

Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal grieving the incident at issue in this action, during which

defendant allegedly poured hot water on plaintiff. (Doc. 1, court record pgs. 5-6; Doc. 20, pgs. 6-

Case 1:06-cv-00502-OWW -LJO Document 24 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 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

4

7.) The appeal was partially granted at the first formal level of review and denied at the second

level of review. (Id.) Plaintiff did not pursue the appeal to the third and final level of review. 

Plaintiff’s argument that he did not need to proceed any further because the appeal was partially

granted at the first level is without merit. By necessity, an appeal that is only partially granted is

also partially denied. Further, plaintiff did pursue his appeal to the next level of review, thereby

belying any argument that there was no further relief available and he was satisfied by the

process. Plaintiff’s appeal was then denied at the second level of review. Plaintiff was required

to pursue his appeal to the final level of review before filing suit in this court, but failed to do so. 

Accordingly, plaintiff failed to exhaust. 

Plaintiff’s other argument that his Board of Control claim satisfies the exhaustion

requirement is without merit. California’s Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a

public entity or its employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation and

Government Claims Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six

months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-

950.2 (West 2007). Presentation of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are

conditions precedent to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234,

1245, 90 P.3d 116, 124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 543 (2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils.

Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). Compliance with the state’s Tort Claims Act does

not satisfy the federal exhaustion requirement set forth in section 1997e(a). Woodford, 126 S.Ct.

at 2383; McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201; Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir.

1999) (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies not required if a prisoner’s section

1983 claim seeks only money damages and the grievance process does not allow for such an

award overruled in part by Booth, 532 U.S. 731). 

D. Conclusion

Plaintiff did not pursue his appeal to the third and final level of review, and therefore

failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. Accordingly, the court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed March 22, 2007,

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

Case 1:06-cv-00502-OWW -LJO Document 24 Filed 05/24/07 Page 4 of 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

5

exhaust.

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 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: May 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00502-OWW -LJO Document 24 Filed 05/24/07 Page 5 of 5