Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00360/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00360-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Gregory Tabarez,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0360 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Diana Butler, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner prosecuting this civil rights action

without counsel. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that April 8,

2002, defendants intentionally released incompatible groups of

Hispanics to a handball court to instigate a riot and when

plaintiff was attacked they failed to protect him. Defendants

move to dismiss upon the ground plaintiff failed to exhaust the

available administrative remedies. 

On a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings

Case 2:04-cv-00360-LKK -KJN Document 28 Filed 06/03/05 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

and decide disputed facts. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th

Cir. 2002). 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that a prisoner may

bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative 

remedies as are available. The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Administrative remedies

are available so long as some form of redress may be obtained

through an established procedure. Booth, 532 U.S. at 738-39. 

The administrative remedy must be exhausted before suit is

brought and a prisoner is not entitled to a stay of judicial

proceedings in order to exhaust. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198

(9th Cir. 2002). Where a litigant requests leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, suit commences when the request is granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (court may “authorize commencement” of

suit without prepayment of filing fee for person demonstrating

inability to pay). 

California prisoners may appeal “any departmental decision,

action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having

an adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 Cal. Admin. Code 

§ 3084.1(a). A prisoner must submit his appeal within 15 work

days of the event or decision appealed or of receiving an

unsatisfactory decision on a lower level. 15 Cal. Admin. Code §

3084.6(c). The regulations require the use of specific forms but

contains no guidelines for grievance content. 15 Cal. Admin. 

Code §§ 3084.2, 3085 (designating use of CDC Form 602

Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form for all grievances except those

related to disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities

Case 2:04-cv-00360-LKK -KJN Document 28 Filed 06/03/05 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

3

Act, which are filed on CDC Form 1824, Reasonable Modification or

Accommodation Request). Prisoners ordinarily must present their

allegations on one informal and three formal levels of review. 

15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.5. The informal level is waived for

and the appeals coordinator must bypass the first formal level

for certain classes of appeals. 15 Cal. Admin. Code §

3084.5(a)(3), (b). The institution head or his designee reviews

appeals on the second level. 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.5(e)(1). 

Decisions on the third level, the Director’s Level of Review,

cannot be appealed and conclude the administrative process. 15

Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.1(a). 

July 18, 2002, plaintiff submitted a grievance about the

events of April 8, 2002. He requested official reprimand and

“restraint” of staff involved in those events. July 25, 2002,

petitioner received notice the appeals coordinator rejected the

grievance upon the ground petitioner exceeded the time-limit for

grieving the events of April 8. Under the heading, “Please

Follow Instructions and Return with your CDC-602,” the appeals

coordinator wrote, “You have 15 working days to file an appeal. 

I will forward a copy of your complaint to Warden Butler for any

action she deems necessary.” Also July 25, 2002, plaintiff had 

to relinquish all personal property in preparation for his

transfer from Folsom State Prison to San Quentin State Prison.

Petitioner appealed August 27, 2002, upon the ground his

initial grievance was not late because he was in administrative

segregation until August 9, 2002, and disciplinary proceedings

Case 2:04-cv-00360-LKK -KJN Document 28 Filed 06/03/05 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

against him based on the riot were ongoing. He requested leave

to exhaust administrative remedies so he could file a civil

rights action in federal court. August 28, 2002, the appeals

coordinator at San Quentin State Prison directed the appeal to

staff at Folsom State Prison, who informed San Quentin staff the

appeal had been rejected as untimely. September 19, 2002,

plaintiff received notice his appeal was rejected because his

initial grievance was untimely.

September 22, 2002, plaintiff appealed to the director’s

level of review, again arguing his initial grievance was not late

because he was in administrative segregation until August 9,

2002, and disciplinary proceedings against him based on the riot

were ongoing. October 7, 2002, plaintiff’s appeal papers were

returned because his original appeal was untimely. 

Defendants contend plaintiff failed to exhaust because his

initial grievance was untimely. The appeals coordinator

forwarded a copy of the grievance to the warden, effectively

bypassing the first formal level of review. See 15 Cal. Admin.

Code § 3084.5(b)(3) (authorizing bypass of the first formal level

for issues “which cannot be resolved at the division head’s

level”); 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.5(e)(1). Since Warden Butler

did not respond to plaintiff in writing, plaintiff could not

appeal her decision and no further remedy was available. 

Accordingly, plaintiff exhausted available administrative

remedies. See Lewis v. Washingon, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir.

2002) (administrative remedy unavailable when prison officials’

Case 2:04-cv-00360-LKK -KJN Document 28 Filed 06/03/05 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

neglect or omission prevents an inmate from utilizing them);

Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir. 2002) (same); Foulk v.

Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. 2001) (same).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed the

question of whether a prisoner who files an untimely

administrative appeal defaults a state procedure such that he

cannot bring a civil rights action in federal court. Ngo v.

Woodford, 2005 WL 674707 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)). In that case, an

appeals coordinator rejected Ngo’s initial grievance as late and

advised Ngo he could appeal the finding of untimeliness. Ngo’s

timely appeal was rejected and he filed a civil rights action in

federal court. The District Court dismissed the action as

unexhausted under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), reasoning that since

Ngo’s initial grievance was time-barred he did not exhaust

available administrative remedies. 

The appellate court held that when a prisoner’s appeal is

rejected as untimely and defendants cannot identify any further

remedy, the prisoner has exhausted under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Ngo. Explaining that the purpose of exhaustion under 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a) is different from that in habeas corpus, the court held

that when a prisoner is deemed to have defaulted time

requirements for pursuing an administrative remedy, § 1997e(a)

does not bar suit in federal court. Id.

The appeals coordinator in this case advised plaintiff he

could appeal her decision within 15 work days. Plaintiff’s

transfer prevented him from complying with the time-limit but

Case 2:04-cv-00360-LKK -KJN Document 28 Filed 06/03/05 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

once settled at San Quentin, he appealed the determination his

initial grievance was untimely through the director’s level of

review. Those appeals were rejected. Defendants do not identify

any other remedy available to plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff

exhausted available administrative remedies and his default of

the time limit does not bar this court from entertaining this

action. Ngo, supra.

For these reasons, defendants’ October 25, 2004, motion to

dismiss should be denied and defendants should be directed to

file and serve an answer within 30 days.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00360-LKK -KJN Document 28 Filed 06/03/05 Page 6 of 6