Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00960-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVARO QUEZADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(ECF No. 17)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Smith on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise of 

religion, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, and RLUIPA claims. (ECF No. 12.)

Before the Court is Defendant’s August 5, 2015 motion to dismiss, alleging that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff filed an 

opposition. (ECF No. 21.) Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 23.) The matter is deemed 

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Ordinarily, a motion for summary judgment is the proper means to raise a 

prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 24 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 6
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

1166 (9th Cir. 2014). However, “in the rare event that a failure to exhaust is clear on the 

face of the complaint, a defendant may move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id.

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency 

of a claim, and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the 

absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force 

v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 

1242; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must 

accept the factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

non-moving party. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998. Pro se litigants are entitled to have 

their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. 

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121.

In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court’s review is generally limited to the 

operative pleading. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998. However, courts may properly 

consider matters subject to judicial notice and documents incorporated by reference in 

the pleading without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. 

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 1986); Mack v. S. Bay Beer 

Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).

III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Smith arise out of her alleged denial of 

Plaintiff’s request for kosher meals. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he has been 

a practicing member of the House of Yahweh since 2009 and was receiving kosher

meals. At some point, his kosher meals were terminated and he submitted a Form 22 

inquiry regarding such meals. Defendant Smith addressed his Form 22 in November 

2011 and denied Plaintiff Kosher meals because he practices the House of Yahweh 

religion rather than Judaism and is not of the Jewish “race.” He claims that Defendant 

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 24 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 6
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

Smith lied in her response to Plaintiff’s Form 22 regarding his Kosher meals by 

misinforming Plaintiff that the “Rabbi was the only staff member to approve and grant a 

Kosher diet.” Although Defendant Smith stated that she did not have the authority to 

approve his meals, she approved such meals for other House of Yahweh members in 

the past.

IV. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the 

complaint and the exhibits attached by Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff included 

documents showing that he submitted and exhausted an appeal regarding the denial of 

his kosher meals, but this appeals did not name Defendant Smith. Defendant Smith was 

not implicated in Plaintiff’s appeal until she adjudicated the appeal at the first level of 

review. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Form 22 request is insufficient under California 

regulations to exhaust administrative remedies.

Plaintiff responds that, at the time of filing his administrative appeal, he did not 

have knowledge of Defendant Smith’s involvement or of her authority to approve his 

kosher meals.1It was not until April 2012, when he returned to general population, that 

he learned from others of his same religion that Smith had approved their kosher meals.

V. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard – Exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust “such 

administrative remedies as are available” prior to bringing an action regarding prison 

conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 

211 (2007). “The primary purpose of a [prisoner’s administrative] grievance is to alert 

the prison to a problem and facilitate its resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation.” 

Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Exhaustion must be “proper.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). The 

 

1 He also asserts that he was ignorant to the discriminatory reasons behind the denial of his meals. 

However, this assertion is contradicted by the appeal records themselves, in which Plaintiff asserts a 

discriminatory animus on the part of prison officials even prior to Smith’s involvement in the issue.

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 24 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 6
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

prison’s own grievance process determines how detailed a grievance must be to satisfy 

the exhaustion requirement. Jones., 549 U.S. at 218.The prisoner must comply with that 

process in such a way as to allow the prison to reach the merits of the issue. Woodford, 

548 U.S. at 90.

The regulations applicable at the time Plaintiff filed his grievance2required that 

Plaintiff’s grievance “list all staff member(s) involved and . . . describe their involvement 

in the issue.” Cal. Code Regs. tit.15, § 3084.2(a)(3) (2011). Plaintiff also was required to 

state “all facts known and available to him/her regarding the issue being appealed” at 

the time of submitting his initial appeal form. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a)(4) 

(2011).

B. Analysis

On their face, the California regulations would appear to preclude Plaintiff’s suit: 

to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, Plaintiff was required to name the staff 

members against whom his complaints ran. Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff 

exhausted administrative appeals regarding the denial of his kosher meals. But, those 

appeals did not name Defendant Smith. Thus, according to Defendant, Plaintiff’s claims

must be dismissed. 

However, case law decided since the filing of Defendant’s motion precludes such 

a conclusion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a 

similarly postured case in Reyes v. Smith, No. 13-17119 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2016) (slip 

op.). There, the plaintiff filed an administrative grievance regarding changes to his 

prescription pain medication regimen. The plaintiff did not name in his grievance the 

physicians or other medical staff responsible for the changes. The action was dismissed 

 

2

Previously, the California Code of Regulations required only that an inmate “describe the problem and 

action requested.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a) (2007). Thus, prior to 2011, prisoners were not 

required in an administrative grievance to “identify responsible parties or otherwise to signal who 

ultimately may be sued.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Jones, 549 U.S. at 

217); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). Although the United States Supreme 

Court has stated that providing notice of the individuals who might later be sued is not one of the leading 

purposes of the exhaustion requirement, Jones, 549 U.S. at 219, California nonetheless amended its 

regulations to now require prisoners to identify responsible staff in their complaints. 

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 24 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 6
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

pursuant to the regulations cited above.

Citing the purposes underlying the PLRA exhaustion requirement, the Ninth 

Circuit reversed. The court noted that the plaintiff’s grievance was “potentially 

procedurally flawed” due to plaintiff’s failure to name the putative defendants. Slip op. at 

7. However, because “prison officials address[ed] the merits of [the] prisoner’s 

grievance instead of enforcing a procedural bar, the state’s interests in administrative 

exhaustion [were] served.” Id. Specifically, “[p]rison officials have had the opportunity to 

address the grievance and correct their own errors and an administrative record has 

been developed.” Id. Thus, the court concluded that, “if prison officials ignore the 

procedural problem and render a decision on the merits of the grievance at each 

available step of the administrative process,” the prisoner has exhausted “such

administrative remedies as are available” under the PLRA. Id. at 9 (citing 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a)).

In light of Reyes, Defendant’s argument cannot be maintained. Instead, the 

documents attached to Plaintiff’s complaint reflect that Plaintiff’s administrative 

complaints regarding the denial of kosher meals were addressed on the merits at each 

step of the administrative process. Accordingly, these documents reflect that Plaintiff

exhausted “such administrative remedies as are available” under the PLRA.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss must be denied.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that Defendant Smith has not met her burden of showing Plaintiff 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY 

RECOMMENDS that Defendant Smith’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) be DENIED. 

The findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, any party 

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 24 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 6
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

Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 24 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 6