Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00011-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR ANDRESON,

Plaintiff,

v.

McINTRNY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0011 MCE CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6), which was 

found to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant McIntrny (ECF No. 22).

Before the court is defendant’s April 10, 2015 motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies is clear on the face of the complaint. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff has not 

opposed the motion.

I. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

Case 2:14-cv-00011-MCE-CKD Document 56 Filed 05/19/15 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

plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 570). In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 

complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all 

doubts in the pleader’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 

869 (1969). The court may consider facts established by exhibits attached to the complaint. 

Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). The court may also consider 

facts which may be judicially noticed, Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 

1388 (9th Cir. 1987); and matters of public record, including pleadings, orders, and other papers 

filed with the court, Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). 

II. Exhaustion Requirement

Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action shall be 

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a) (also known as 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)). A prisoner must exhaust his administrative 

remedies before he commences suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199–1201 (9th Cir.

2002). Failure to comply with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense that 

must be raised and proved by the defendant. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). In the 

Ninth Circuit, a defendant may raise the issue of administrative exhaustion in either (1) a motion 

to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), in the rare event the failure to exhaust is clear on the face of 

the complaint, or (2) a motion for summary judgment. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (en banc). 

An untimely or otherwise procedurally defective appeal will not satisfy the exhaustion 

requirement. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). When an inmate’s administrative 

grievance is improperly rejected on procedural grounds, however, exhaustion may be excused as 

“effectively unavailable.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Nunez v. 

Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224–26 (9th Cir. 2010) (warden’s mistake rendered prisoner’s 

administrative remedies “effectively unavailable”); Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th 

Case 2:14-cv-00011-MCE-CKD Document 56 Filed 05/19/15 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

Cir. 2012) (exhaustion excused where futile); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 940 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(plaintiff not required to proceed to third level where appeal granted at second level and no 

further relief was available).

III. Analysis 

In the FAC, plaintiff alleges that defendant harassed him and used racist language towards 

him. On January 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a 602 inmate appeal and gave it to a non-defendant 

correctional officer. Later that day, defendant told plaintiff that plaintiff, who was 74 years old, 

would be dead before the court did anything to defendant. He also said that if plaintiff wrote 

another inmate appeal, “it [won’t] go nowhere, I’ll see to that, me and the other guys.” (ECF No. 

6 at 6-7.) 

On the complaint form provided by the court, plaintiff checked boxes indicating that there 

was a grievance procedure available at his institution; that he had filed a grievance concerning the 

facts relating to this complaint; and that the grievance process was not completed. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff provided no explanation why he did not pursue the grievance through all levels of 

administrative review, or whether he attempted to do so. Defendant argues that plaintiff has 

“effectively conceded, under penalty of perjury, that he did not exhaust administrative remedies.” 

(ECF No. 47-1 at 5.)

Nor does plaintiff oppose the instant motion. Rather, he seeks to supplement or amend 

the FAC to allege ongoing racial harassment by prison staff. (ECF Nos. 54, 55.) These recent 

filings do not address the exhaustion issue. 

Based on the foregoing, the court will grant defendant’s motion, but give plaintiff one 

final opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with the exhaustion requirement or 

explains why exhaustion was “effectively unavailable.” A pro se litigant should be given leave 

to amend, unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. 

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 47) is granted; 

2. The First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is dismissed with leave to amend; 

Case 2:14-cv-00011-MCE-CKD Document 56 Filed 05/19/15 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

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file supplemental complaint (ECF No. 54) is denied as 

moot; and 

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and 

two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: May 19, 2015

2 / ande0011.mtd_ex

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00011-MCE-CKD Document 56 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 4