Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04678/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04678-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Pending Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Davis678mtd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

MIKE EVANS, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4678 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS; DENYING PENDING

MOTIONS AS MOOT

(Docket Nos. 17, 33, 35)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 against officials of the Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). Plaintiff has been granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court dismissed one of Plaintiff’s claims and ordered

service of the complaint on the named Defendants. Defendant Evans has filed a motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or, in the alternative, on the ground that he

is entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff has filed opposition, and Evans has filed a reply. 

Defendants Tucker and Sandoval have joined in the pending motion to dismiss. Based upon the

papers submitted, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion and DISMISS the complaint

without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

\\\

Case 5:05-cv-04678-JF Document 44 Filed 03/25/08 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Pending Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Davis678mtd 2

Based upon the dismissal, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to amend the complaint and

Defendants’ motion to stay discovery will be DENIED as moot. 

DISCUSSION 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to

provide that “[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). 

Although once within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by

§ 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). All available

remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies “need not meet federal standards, nor must

they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Id. (citation omitted). Even when the prisoner seeks

relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a

prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Similarly, exhaustion is a

prerequisite to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or

particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 534

U.S. at 532. 

The PLRA exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of available

administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2387 (2006). The PLRA’s

exhaustion requirement cannot be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally

defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Woodford, 126 S. Ct. at 2382. “The text of 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) strongly suggests that the PLRA uses the term ‘exhausted’ to mean what the

term means in administrative law, where exhaustion means proper exhaustion.” Id. at 2387. 

Therefore, the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion. Id. “Proper

exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules

because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure

on the course of its proceedings.” Id. at 2386 (footnote omitted). 

The State of California provides its prisoners the right to appeal administratively “any

departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely

Case 5:05-cv-04678-JF Document 44 Filed 03/25/08 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Pending Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Davis678mtd 3

affecting their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). It also provides them the right to

file appeals alleging misconduct by correctional staff. Id. § 3084.1(e). In order to exhaust

available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several

levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal

form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third level appeal to the

director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F.

Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5). A final decision

from the director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at

1237-38. 

Nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct.

910, 922-23 (2007); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir 2003). It should be treated

as a matter of abatement and brought in an “unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than [in] a

motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citations omitted). In deciding a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 1997e(a), the court may look beyond the

pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. If the court concludes that the

prisoner has not exhausted California’s prison administrative process, the proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice. Id. Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence

of exhaustion, and inmates are not required to plead or demonstrate exhaustion specifically in

their complaints. Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 921-22. As there can be no absence of exhaustion unless

some relief remains available, a movant claiming lack of exhaustion must demonstrate that

pertinent relief remained available, whether at unexhausted levels or through awaiting the results

of the relief already granted as a result of that process. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-37

(9th Cir. 2005). 

Here, Defendants correctly raise nonexhaustion in an unenumerated motion to dismiss. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff did not exhaust

his administrative remedies before filing this action. Defendants note that Plaintiff admits in his

verified complaint that he did not exhaust the administrative grievance process with respect to

the claims in the instant complaint. In his response to the question, “Did you present the facts in

Case 5:05-cv-04678-JF Document 44 Filed 03/25/08 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Pending Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Davis678mtd 4

your complaint for review through the grievance procedure?” Plaintiff checked “No.” 

Complaint at 1. Plaintiff states that he did file an informal appeal at SVSP, but that he did not

receive a response before he was transferred to High Desert State Prison. Id. at 2. Plaintiff

further alleges that he filed a Citizens’ Complaint and a 602 Inmate Appeal concerning the

alleged assault but that these complaints were ignored by SVSP administration and not returned

to him. Id. Plaintiff explains that he did file a “grievance complaint within (S.V.S.P.) as

required by the CDC Institutions procedures. But never did get any legal response from the

Administration Personnel.” Id. With his complaint, Plaintiff attached a copy of his letter to

SVSP Warden Evans stating that he would like to meet personally with the Warden to discuss

the June 25, 2005 incident. Complaint, Ex. A. Plaintiff also attached a copy of a 602 Inmate

Appeal form, which he signed and dated on July 17, 2005. Complaint, Ex. B. However, the

form does not indicate any response on the part of SVSP personnel: there is no date of receipt,

no staff signature, and no written response. Id. Plaintiff also has submitted copies of his medical

report and a CDC 115 Rules Violation Report form regarding the June 25, 2005 incident. 

Complaint, Exs. C, D. 

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s letter did not follow the CDCR’s administrative

grievance procedure, which requires that a CDC Form 602 be submitted, rather than a letter. 

Cal. Code Regs. Tit.15, §3084.2(a). Here, Plaintiff attached a CDC 602 form to his letter

without any written instruction concerning the form. Thus, Defendants contend that the form

was nothing more than a supporting document or exhibit attached to Plaintiff’s formal complaint

letter. Additionally, Plaintiff has not established that he completely exhausted his grievance

through the Director’s level of review. 

Defendants have submitted supporting documentation from Plaintiff’s CDCR

administrative appeal record. According to a computer printout showing his appeals history at

SVSP, Plaintiff submitted twenty-one appeals, eleven of which met the Code of Regulations’

criteria for review and were assigned an institutional log number. Decl. of T. Variz, Appeals

Coordinator, In Support of Defs.’ Mot. at 2; Ex. A. According to the SVSP computer printout,

Plaintiff’s most recent appeal submitted at SVSP was at the informal level of review in

Case 5:05-cv-04678-JF Document 44 Filed 03/25/08 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Pending Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Davis678mtd 5

December 2004. Id., Ex. A at 2. According to the SVSP Appeals Coordinator, if an inmate is

transferred to a new prison facility before exhausting the appeals process at the facility where the

grievance arose, he can pursue the appeal by mailing the grievance to that institution.

Alternatively, an inmate may submit the grievance at his current institution and it will be

forwarded to the institution where the grievance arose. Id. at 3, ¶ 8.

Defendants also have submitted documentation of Plaintiff’s appeal history at the

director’s level of review. According to the CDCR Inmate Appeals Branch, Plaintiff has

submitted one appeal through the final level of review. This appeal, HDSP 06-0959, was

submitted while Plaintiff was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) and concerns

Plaintiff’s request for a higher level of mental health treatment at HDSP. Decl. of N. Grannis in

Support of Defs. Mot. at 2; Ex. B. Although Plaintiff did submit a second appeal at the

director’s level, this appeal was screened out in April 2006 because Plaintiff had not completed

the second level of review and the original appeal form was omitted. Id. at 2; Ex. C. Defendants

argue that the instant claims must be dismissed because Plaintiff’s administrative appeals record,

documented by the Inmate Appeal Branch and SVSP as well as Plaintiff’s own verified

complaint, demonstrate that Plaintiff has not fully exhausted his administrative remedies with

respect to the present incident through the director’s level of review. 

In his opposition, Plaintiff maintains that he submitted a CDC 1858 Citizens Complaint, a

CDC 602 Inmate Appeal against Sandoval and a letter asking to meet with Tucker on July 17,

2005. Pl.’s Opp. at 1; Decl. of Plaintiff in Support of Opp. at 4. After Plaintiff received no

response, he submitted copies of the CDC 1858, CDC 602 and a detailed letter of the June 25,

2005 assault to Warden Evans on July 27, 2005. Id. On August 1, 2005, Plaintiff was

transferred to HDSP, as a non-adverse transfer as a result of being the victim of an assault. Id.

Plaintiff received his CDC 115 Rules Violation Report hearing results, but he never received 

acknowledgment from Evans or Tucker, nor were his submitted documents returned to him. Id.

After waiting five months, he filed the instant civil rights action on November 15, 2005. Id.

Plaintiff has submitted copies of the documents he sent to Tucker on July 17, 2005 and copies of

the letter and documents sent to Evans on July 27, 2005. Pl.’s Opp. Ex. A, B. 

Case 5:05-cv-04678-JF Document 44 Filed 03/25/08 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Pending Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Davis678mtd 6

Plaintiff asserts that his track record of appeals demonstrates that he will appeal any issue

“which has had a significant adverse effect upon himself.” Id. at 2. He claims that the electronic

records submitted by Defendants do not reflect appeals that are screened out, or take into account

the procedures by which the appeals coordinator or staff determine whether the appeal meets the

criteria for review under the CCR. Plaintiff argues that this latter procedure could be a

calculated and deliberate means to disavow lost, misplaced appeals. Pl.’s Opp. at 2. Plaintiff

points out that prior to the submission of inmate appeals through institutional mail to the

appropriate staff, inmates are not permitted to attach or obtain a proof of service. He contends

that this procedure creates a risk of misplaced and lost appeals with no recording or printout of

these documents in the institution’s records. Id. at 3. Finally, Plaintiff argues “that it is futile for

there to be a secondary appeal filed if plaintiff did not file a appeal in the first place to the

allegations in this case.” Id. at 3.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has exhausted his

administrative remedies with respect to the specific claims set forth in his complaint prior to

filing this suit on November 15, 2005. The Court notes that a prisoner must complete the

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including

deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. at

2384. “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical

procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some

orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Id. at 2386 (footnote omitted). Even

accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, Plaintiff’s supporting documentation of his CDC 1858,

CDC 602, and letter to Defendant Evans do not show any received date or other

acknowledgment that these documents were received or processed by Defendants or other SVSP

staff. Even assuming that Plaintiff’s documentation did satisfy the requirements at the informal

level of review, Plaintiff does not allege or establish, that he exhausted the three remaining levels

of review applicable to his claims. Plaintiff admits that after receiving no response from his

initial documentation and letter from July 2005 for five months, he simply filed the instant

complaint. It is clear at the very least that Plaintiff has not pursued his appeal through the

Case 5:05-cv-04678-JF Document 44 Filed 03/25/08 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 1

Based upon the Court’s finding that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,

the Court declines to address Defendants’ second argument concerning qualified immunity. 

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Pending Motions as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Davis678mtd 7

director’s level of review. A final decision from the director’s level of review satisfies the

exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. at 1237-38. (citing Cal.

Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5). Plaintiff’s contentions regarding the general processing of inmate

appeals do not address the particular appeal concerning the instant claims. Nor does Plaintiff

allege that this appeal was lost at the first, second or third levels of review. Accordingly,

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket no. 17) for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies will be GRANTED.1

CONCLUSION 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies (docket no. 17) is GRANTED. The instant complaint is DISMISSED

without prejudice. Based upon the dismissal, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to

amend the complaint (docket no. 35) and Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (docket no. 33)

are DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

3/25/08

Case 5:05-cv-04678-JF Document 44 Filed 03/25/08 Page 7 of 7