Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01629/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01629-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID W. WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1629 GEB KJM P

vs.

OFFICER K. WANN, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action filed under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This action is currently proceeding against defendant Wann for claims arising under the

First and Eighth Amendments. See October 23, 2007 Order. Defendant has filed a motion to

dismiss.

I. “Three Strikes” Dismissal

First, defendant asserts this action should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under that statute, an inmate cannot bring an action in forma pauperis if, on three prior occasions

and while incarcerated, he or she brought actions in federal court that were dismissed as

frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The

information presented by defendant indicates that plaintiff has one case that qualifies as a “strike”

under § 1915(g). Def’t’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. A (2003 dismissal as “legally and/or

Case 2:06-cv-01629-GEB -KJM Document 37 Filed 09/08/08 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

2

factually patently frivolous.”). The other cases identified by defendant had not yet been

dismissed before this action was filed. Id., Exs. B, C, D & E. Therefore, plaintiff was not

precluded from bringing this action under the in forma pauperis statute when he did so. 

II. Dismissal For Failure To Exhaust

Second, defendant asks that this action be dismissed because plaintiff failed to

exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his remaining claims prior to bringing this

action. A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit

arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust non-judicial

remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 

1120. If the district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted non-judicial remedies,

the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice. Id.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act 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. § 1997e(a). California prison regulations

provide administrative procedures in the form of one informal and three formal levels of review

to address plaintiff’s claims. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.7. Administrative

procedures generally are exhausted once a prisoner has received a “Director’s Level Decision,”

or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. All

steps must be completed before a civil rights action is filed, unless a plaintiff demonstrates a step

is unavailable to him; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation will not save an action

from dismissal. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendant bears the

burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003).

In his amended complaint plaintiff, alleges he was denied the right to practice his

religion because defendant denied him access to religious materials, including a Bible. He also

Case 2:06-cv-01629-GEB -KJM Document 37 Filed 09/08/08 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

 Page references are to those assigned by the court’s CM/ECF system. 1

 Plaintiff cites Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 & n.15, and Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 2

(9th Cir. 2005), as recognizing there can be an exception to the exhaustion requirement. Wyatt

does make a passing reference in dicta to the possibility of an exception, without standing for any

proposition that is helpful to plaintiff here. Ngo was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. See

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). Moreover, there is no futility exception to the exhaustion

of administrative remedies requirement found in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Booth v. Churner, 532

U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 

3

asserts he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because defendant denied plaintiff

access to personal items plaintiff requires to maintain his health. Plaintiff alleges he was denied

access to these items by defendant on or around February 23, 2006. See Am. Compl. at

18:19-20:4.1

In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff does not dispute defendant’s

contention that he never obtained a “Director’s Level Decision” with respect to any of the claims

remaining in this action. Plaintiff suggests that administrative remedies were not available to

him due to the actions of prison staff, that he attempted to submit grievances to all the right

persons, and that he therefore qualifies for an “exception” to the exhaustion requirement. See

Opp’n (docket no. 21) at 5-10. 

2

The evidence to which plaintiff points in his opposition brief does not support an

exception to the exhaustion requirement or the proposition that administrative remedies were not

available to him. See id. at 24, 31-35, 49, 53-67, 69-79, 81-91, 95-98 (Exs. 7(f), TA, KW). The

record shows plaintiff complained to various people in various ways (often not using official

grievance forms), and that he initiated the grievance process with respect to at least some of his

claims. Id. Along with many apparently irrelevant exhibits, plaintiff provides a copy of the

grievance that coincides most closely with his litigation claims, as an exhibit to his amended

complaint. See Am. Compl. at 62-64; Opp’n at 64-66. It appears this grievance was returned to

plaintiff initially because, among other things, it contained too many claims involving different

subjects, and a second time because he had not attached a required property receipt. Opp’n at 71,

Case 2:06-cv-01629-GEB -KJM Document 37 Filed 09/08/08 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

4

77. Nothing suggests plaintiff could not cure the deficiencies in his submissions, and then

resubmit his grievance again at the appropriate level. Plaintiff’s apparent position -- that his

resorting to letters to the Office of the Inspector General, CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs and

the Warden was justified, without further attempting to exhaust -- is unsupported. See Opp’n at

68-69, 77. In particular, nothing indicates plaintiff was foreclosed or relieved from proceeding

through all steps in the grievance process. By pointing to the gaps in plaintiff’s efforts to

properly exhaust, defendant has met his burden. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the court will recommend that this action be

dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to his

claims prior to filing suit. Because the court is recommending dismissal, the court need not

address the other arguments in favor of dismissal asserted in defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

III. Requests For Judicial Notice

Both parties have filed several requests for judicial notice. The court may take

judicial notice of adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable dispute. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. 

The court will grant defendant’s January 22, 2008 and February 15, 2008 requests

for judicial notice of the fact of dismissal of certain other cases filed by plaintiff, as demonstrated

by the court records defendant has provided. 

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of all the exhibits attached to his opposition to

defendant’s motion to dismiss. These exhibits do not satisfy the requirements for the taking of

judicial notice. However, to the extent defendant has not objected to certain of the exhibits

referenced in these findings, and referenced them in his own filings, the court has relied on them. 

IV. Plaintiff’s Other Filings

On February 11, 2008, plaintiff filed a second opposition to defendant’s motion to

dismiss. Defendant asks that the opposition be stricken. The “second” opposition appears to be

a duplicate copy of the first, with a complete set of exhibits. Because it does not appear that the

“second” opposition reflects any substantive change in plaintiff’s arguments, and defendant will

Case 2:06-cv-01629-GEB -KJM Document 37 Filed 09/08/08 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

5

not be prejudiced by the court’s consideration of the complete exhibits, defendant’s motion will

be denied. Plaintiff’s original opposition, however, will be disregarded.

Plaintiff filed a sur-reply concerning defendant’s motion to dismiss on March 3,

2008. Sur-replies are not generally allowed under the Local Rules of this court. See Local Rule

78-230(m). Because plaintiff did not seek leave to file a sur-reply, his sur-reply will be stricken. 

Finally, the court notes that plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary

injunction. It does not appear the motion concerns the actions of defendant Wann or that

plaintiff wants the court to order Wann to take some action. Considering these facts, that the

court is recommending that this action be dismissed, and nothing in plaintiff’s motion suggests

the outcome of defendant’s motion to dismiss might be different if plaintiff obtained the relief

requested, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be

denied. To the extent plaintiff seeks relief from persons other than defendant Wann, he may not

obtain such relief in this lawsuit. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s January 22, 2008 (#16) request for judicial notice is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s February 8, 2008 opposition (#18) is disregarded;

3. Plaintiff’s February 11, 2008 (#21) request for judicial notice is denied;

4. Defendant’s February 15, 2008 request for judicial notice (#24) is granted; 

5. Plaintiff’s March 3, 2008 request for judicial notice (#29) is denied;

6. Defendant’s motion to strike (#22) is denied; and

7. Plaintiff’s sur-replies concerning defendant’s motion to dismiss (##27, 28) are

stricken from the record.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s “motion for temporary restraining order” (#32) be denied;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (#16) be granted; and

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01629-GEB -KJM Document 37 Filed 09/08/08 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

6

3. This action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies with respect to his claims prior to filing suit.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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). 

DATED: September 5, 2008.

1/wils1629.57

Case 2:06-cv-01629-GEB -KJM Document 37 Filed 09/08/08 Page 6 of 6