Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00353/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00353-11/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 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on January 9, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 25.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THADDEUS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PAPPENFUS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0353-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND THIS

ACTION PROCEED ONLY AGAINST

DEFENDANT RODRIGUEZ

(Doc. 33)

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff is state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint, March 16, 2005, against defendants

MTA Rodriguez, Dr. Rees and Dr. Pappenfus for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for retaliation. On March 30, 2006,

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

Pappenfus (“defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the

available administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. 

1

B. Exhaustion Requirement

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 10/30/06 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

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. 2

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(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.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days

of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c).

2

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). 2

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 claims that he has a rod in his left femur and requires use of a cane. Plaintiff also

claims that he suffers from neck, back and leg pain resulting from a fall in December 2004. Plaintiff

contends that defendants took his cane away and failed to refer him to a neurologist. 

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 10/30/06 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

Defendants Rees and Pappenfus 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 the Declaration of T. Emigh, acting Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch. Mr.

Emigh states that as of the filing of plaintiff’s complaint, the only medical appeal that had reached

the final level of review (Director’s Level), was Appeal ASP 04-00029, which was partially granted

at the Director’s Level on August 24, 2004. Emigh Declaration at ¶¶ 7, 8. This appeal concerned

a request that plaintiff receive a referral to a neurologist, to be medically unassigned and restoration

of a 30-day loss of credit. Id. Defendants argue that this appeal therefore did not exhaust his

grievances against defendants Rees and Pappenfus because it does not mention these defendants and

there is no mention of deliberate indifference as to Drs. Rees and Pappenfus. 

Mr. Emigh states that plaintiff submitted Appeal ASP 04-2701 on April 4, 2005, which dealt

with plaintiff’s claims that Dr. Pappenfus, MTA Rodriguez and RN Sedley retaliated against him

by not following the Director’s Level decision directing ASP medical staff to refer him to a

neurologist. Emigh Declaration at ¶9. However, this appeal was not exhausted at the Director’s

Level until May 23, 2005, after the filing of this lawsuit on March 16, 2005. Id. Plaintiff submitted

Appeal 04-00494 on April 14, 2005, relating to his cane being taken away. Emigh Declaration at

¶10. This appeal was not exhausted until June 10, 2005. Id. Neither of these appeals relate to

grievances against Dr. Rees. Emigh Declaration at ¶¶ 9, 10. 

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

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

exhaustion requirement. Plaintiff filed no opposition or other response to this motion. 

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

defendants Pappenfus and Rees. The only Director’s Level decision obtained before this lawsuit was

filed related to grievances that predated the claims involved in this lawsuit. 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 Pappenfus and Rees. Accordingly,

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 10/30/06 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

the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants Pappenfus and Rees’ unenumerated Rule

12(b) motion, filed March 30, 2006, be GRANTED, and this action proceed only against defendant

MTA Rodriguez. 

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: October 27, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00353-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 10/30/06 Page 4 of 4