Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06435/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06435-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE DERRICK PAINTER 

Plaintiff,

v.

LEROY D. BACA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-6435-REC-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE DENIED

(Doc. 8) 

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Lee Derrick Painter (“plaintiff”) is a former 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 December 23, 2003 against nineteen employees of the California

Department of Corrections: Alameida, Brooks, Day, Dreith, Pickett, Gransee, Ollison, Zenz,

Goodlow, Mitchell, Reeves, Huddleston, Suryadevara, Endriss, White, Wilson, Crabtree, Cooper

(Graves) and Hubbard (“defendants”). Plaintiff claims that defendants harassed and discriminated

against her due to her status as a transgender inmate. Plaintiff alleges, sexual discrimination,

harassment, emotional distress, failure to protect and negligence occurred while she was incarcerated

at Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) and Northern California Women’s Facility (NCWF)

until her release on January 25, 2003. 

Case 1:04-cv-06435-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 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

27

28

2

The case was severed and transferred to this Court on October 20, 2004, On June 28, 2005,

pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants filed a

motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior

to filing suit. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion or otherwise made any contact with

the Court.

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). 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).

“All ‘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). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at

1199-1201. 

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.” Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5

(2004). 

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.

Case 1:04-cv-06435-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 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

27

28

3

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

Plaintiff was incarcerated at CCWF beginning June 6, 2002. She was transferred to NCWF

on July 10, 2002 where she remained until August 29, 2002 when she was transferred back to

CCWF. Plaintiff was released on January 25, 2003. Plaintiff filed this suit on December 23, 2003

asserting that during her incarceration at CCWF and NCWF, defendants harassed and discriminated

against her due to her status as a transgender inmate. In their motion to dismiss, defendants argue

that plaintiff failed to exhaust her claims prior to filing suit and that they are entitled to dismissal of

this action as a result. In support of their motion, defendants submit the declaration of N. Grannis,

the Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch of CDC. Mr. Grannis states that at the request of the

California Attorney General’s Officer, his office conducted a thorough search of records and found

no record of appeals relating to any of the named defendants’ alleged discrimination against plaintiff

accepted for review of the third or Director’s level from plaintiff. Dec. of N. Grannis ¶ 8. He also

states that the Inmate Appeals Branch has no record of any third or Director’s level decision issued

to plaintiff pertaining to any appeals filed against any of the defendants. Id. 

Defendants are not entitled to dismissal of this action based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies because at the time plaintiff filed this action she was not a “prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a). As used in section 1997e, the term "prisoner" means any person incarcerated or detained

in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for,

violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or

Case 1:04-cv-06435-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 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

27

28

4

diversionary program. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). Defendants admit that plaintiff was released on

January 25, 2003 and filed this action on December 23, 2003. Defendants have provided no

authority for the application of section 1997e to a prisoner who was released prior to filing suit and

therefore plaintiff’s failure to comply with the mandatory exhaustion requirement set forth in 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) does not require dismissal of this action 

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to

dismiss, filed June 28, 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 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: December 15, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06435-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 4