Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00684-4/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

MARVELLOUS A. GREENE, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0684 GEB EFB P

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the June 27, 2003, amended complaint in which

plaintiff claims defendants violated his rights by denying permission to change his name after a

life-altering religious experience. Defendants have answered the complaint but now move to

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) upon the ground plaintiff failed to exhaust available

administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). Plaintiff opposes. For the reasons explained

below, the court finds plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by

42 U.S.C. § 1997e and recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

Defendants style their motion as one to dismiss. However, the motion actually seeks

reconsideration of a prior order denying an earlier motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. 

////

Case 2:02-cv-00684-GEB -EFB Document 102 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Accordingly, it will be treated as a motion for reconsideration. The instant motion is based on a

recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit that clarified the law on a narrow question of timing when a

prisoner completes administrative exhaustion after the filing of in forma pauperis petition but

before the granting of the petition and formal filing of the complaint .

Here, defendants seek dismissal on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust available

administrative remedies as required by 24 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), which provides:

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of

this title, 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.

Defendants filed their first motion to dismiss on this grounds on December 10, 2003. That

motion asserted that plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, but argued in

the alternative that if he did exhaust, he failed to do so before he brought this action. The motion

remained pending until July 30, 2004, when the court denied that motion. The court found that

plaintiff exhausted the “core issue presented,” i.e., whether plaintiff has a First Amendment right

to change his name based upon a sincerely held religious conviction. The court also found that

even though plaintiff submitted his complaint before exhausting available administrative

remedies, he did not commence suit until the court granted his request for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, which occurred after he submitted the complaint. For these reasons, the court

found that plaintiff satisfied the exhaustion requirement and denied defendants’ motion. 

Defendants filed an answer and the case proceeded.

However, the question of when a prisoner brings an action for purposes of the exhaustion

requirement continued to percolate, and early in 2006, the Ninth Circuit took under submission

Vaden v. Summerhill, No. 05-15650, to decide “the precise point in the proceedings at which an

action is ‘brought’” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047,

1049-50 (9th Cir. 2006). Arguing that the decision in Vaden could be dispositive of this case,

defendants obtained a stay pending its outcome. On June 6, 2006, the appellate court decided

Case 2:02-cv-00684-GEB -EFB Document 102 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 Curiously, counsel does not mention Vaden, the only arguable basis for the motion. 

The September 20, 2006, motion materially is identical to the December 10, 2003, motion.

3

Vaden, holding that a prisoner seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis in an action

challenging the conditions of his confinement brings an action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e

when he submits his complaint to the court. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.2d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir.

2006). Therefore, a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing any

papers in federal court. Id. at 1051. This decision directly impacts this case because in denying

defendants’ first motion to dismiss, the court found that an action is “brought” for purposes of 42

U.S.C. § 1983 when the court grants an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Therefore, shortly after the appellate court decided Vaden, this court lifted the stay and gave

defendants 30 days to file and serve an appropriate motion. Defendants complied with that order

and on September 20, 2006, filed this second motion to dismiss.

Defendants’ present motion has two bases. The first is that plaintiff failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies. The second is an alternative argument that if plaintiff did

exhaust, he did so only after bringing suit. The latter presumably is based on the holding in

Vaden.

1

 The district judge’s order denying the December 10, 2003, motion is affected by the

subsequent Ninth Circuit decision in Vaden on only a narrow question: whether plaintiff

exhausted before he brought this action as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Therefore, the

court will address only this question.

As explained, a prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such

administrative remedies as are available. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. 

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). If it is not met, the action must be dismissed. 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). A prisoner seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis in an action challenging the

conditions of his confinement brings an action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e when he

Case 2:02-cv-00684-GEB -EFB Document 102 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

submits his complaint to the court. Vaden, 449 F.2d at 1050. Therefore, a prisoner must exhaust

available administrative remedies before filing any papers in federal court. Id. at 1051. 

The administrative process to be exhausted is as follows. California prisoners may

appeal “any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as

having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). The

regulations require the use of specific forms but contain no guidelines for grievance content. 

Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 15, §§ 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 Act, which are filed on CDC Form 1824, Reasonable Modification or

Accommodation Request). A prisoner must appeal within 15 work days of any adverse action. 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.6(c). The regulations permit but do not require untimely appeals

to be rejected. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.3(c)(6). Where prison officials reject an

appeal as untimely, a prisoner does not properly exhaust available remedies by filing an untimely

appeal. Ngo v. Woodford, U.S. , 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2384, 2387 (2006).

Prisoners ordinarily must present their allegations on one informal and three formal

levels of review, although the informal and the first formal levels may be bypassed. Cal. Code

Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.5. A division head reviews appeals on the first formal level, see Cal. Code

Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.5(b)(3) (authorizing bypass of the first formal level when the division head

cannot resolve it), and the warden or a designee thereof reviews appeals on the second formal

level. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.5(e)(1). Completion of the third level, the Director’s

Level of Review, exhausts the remedy. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). 

Here, plaintiff submitted his original complaint on April 1, 2002. The decision denying

redress on the Director’s Level of Review issued on April 23, 2002. Plaintiff submitted his

complaint before exhausting available administrative remedies. Therefore, under the Ninth

Circuit’s recent ruling in Vaden, plaintiff has not satisfied 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

////

Case 2:02-cv-00684-GEB -EFB Document 102 Filed 12/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendants’ September 20, 2006,

motion to dismiss, construed as a motion for reconsideration of this court’s August 20, 2004,

order, be granted and that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 19, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-00684-GEB -EFB Document 102 Filed 12/20/06 Page 5 of 5