Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01976/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01976-0/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

1 Defendant Zills had not been served with process when defendant

Jimenez filed this motion.

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Cedric Woods,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 03-1976 GEB PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

D. L. Runnels, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis on his claim defendants P. Zills and M. Jimenez violated

his rights by failing to prevent an attack by white prisoners on

black prisoners despite a prisoner had notified defendant Zills

an attack was imminent. Defendant Jimenez1 moves to dismiss upon

the ground plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative

remedies. 

On a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available

Case 2:03-cv-01976-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 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

2

administrative remedies the court may look beyond the pleadings

and decide disputed facts. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th

Cir. 2002). 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that a prisoner may bring no §

1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative 

remedies as are available. The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The administrative remedy

must be exhausted before suit is brought and a prisoner is not

entitled to a stay of judicial proceedings in order to exhaust.

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002). Where a

litigant requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis, suit

commences when the request is granted. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1) (court may “authorize commencement” of suit without

prepayment of filing fee for person demonstrating inability to

pay). 

California prisoners may appeal “any departmental decision,

action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having

an adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 Cal. Admin. Code 

§ 3084.1(a). The regulations require the use of specific forms

but contain no guidelines for grievance content. 15 Cal. Admin.

Code §§ 3084.2, 3085 (designating use of CDC Form 602

Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form for all grievances except those

related to disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities

Act, which are filed on CDC Form 1824, Reasonable Modification or

Accommodation Request). Prisoners ordinarily must present their

allegations on one informal and three formal three formal levels

Case 2:03-cv-01976-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 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

3

of review. 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.5. While presentation on

the third level, the Director’s Level of Review, exhausts the

remedy for departmental purposes, 15 Cal. Admin. Code §

3084.1(a), when prisoners cannot present their allegations on any

subsequent level, they have exhausted available remedies for

purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620,

625 (9th Cir. 2005). The prison’s rejection of an appeal as

untimely does not bar a federal court from considering the merits

of plaintiff’s claim in a civil rights action. Ngo, 403 F.3d at

631. Defendant has the burden of identifying the remedies that

remain available. Ibid. 

Defendant Jimenez concedes plaintiff filed an appeal about

the June 2003 attack but asserts since the appeal was rejected as

untimely and plaintiff did not pursue an appeal to the director’s

level of review, plaintiff failed to satisfy § 1997e(a). 

Plaintiff’s uncontested assertion he filed the appeal late

because he was too incapacitated from the attack to appeal within

the 15 work day limit falls neatly within the rationale of Ngo. 

See Ngo, 403 F.3d at 631 (“As is, prison grievance procedures are

sufficiently difficult for prisoners to comply with. Judicial

imposition of the procedural default doctrine on suits brought

under the PLRA, coupled with the relatively short filing periods

for prisoner grievances, might very well preclude prisonerlitigants with meritorious claims from ever bringing suit.”)

Since plaintiff’s failure timely to appeal does not bar this

action and defendant fails to identify any administrative remedy

Case 2:03-cv-01976-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 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

4

available to plaintiff, I find plaintiff exhausted available

procedural remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Accordingly, defendant’s October 20, 2004, motion to dismiss

should be denied and defendant should be directed to file and

serve an answer within 30 days.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01976-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 06/03/05 Page 4 of 4