Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05107/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05107-5/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 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on May 3, 2007. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 41.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK LEE BILLUPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HOWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5107-AWI DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND THIS

ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 39)

I. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Derrick L. Billups (“plaintiff”) is a 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 second amended complaint against defendants Howard, Kramer and Tennsion

(“defendants”) for deliberate indifference ot his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. On May 3, 2007, 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. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on May 21, 2007 and

defendants filed a reply on May 22, 2007. 

1

///

Case 1:04-cv-05107-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 12/19/07 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

B. Exhaustion Requirement

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).

Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.

2002). 

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.

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 alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs

upon his arrival at Sierra Conservation Center on October 25, 2002. Defendants move to dismiss

this action on the ground that plaintiff did not exhaust the claims against them, as mandated by

section 1997e(a). In support of their motion, defendants submit evidence that plaintiff did not

exhaust any appeals at the Director’s Level involving claims against defendants Kramer, Howard

or Tennison with regard to his allegations that these defendants failed to provide adequate medical

Case 1:04-cv-05107-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 12/19/07 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

to him at Sierra Conservation Center. Grannis Dec., ¶7-9. 

The Court finds that defendants have met their burden as the party moving for dismissal. The

burden therefore shifts to plaintiff to set forth evidence demonstrating that he satisfied the exhaustion

requirement.

In his opposition, plaintiff sets forth numerous arguments, none of which is availing.

Plaintiff contends that defendants “were aware of his medical problems” based on exhausted appeal

Log. ISP 03-542, which he attaches to his opposition. However, this appeal relates to alleged

deliberate indifference by an MTA at Ironwood State Prison prior to plaintiff’s transfer to Sierra

Conservation Center. Plaintiff also attaches appeal Log No. SCC04-0038 to his opposition in which

he complains about his medical care and his need for surgery. However, this appeal was submitted

on December 15, 2003, partially granted at the second level on February 23, 2004 and denied at the

Director’s Level on June 15, 2004. As discussed, exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit.

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that he exhausted his claim against

defendants. The appeals submitted by plaintiff do not concern the failure of defendants to provide

plaintiff with medical treatment while plaintiff was at Sierra Conservation Center or they were

exhausted after plaintiff filed this action. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be

granted.

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff did not exhaust the available

administrative remedies concerning his claim against defendants. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed May 3, 2007, be

GRANTED and this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

the available administrative remedies. 

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

Case 1:04-cv-05107-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 12/19/07 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

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 18, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05107-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 12/19/07 Page 4 of 4