Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00054-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:09-CV-00054-OWW-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND

ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

(ECF NO. 43)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Findings And Recommendations

I. Background

Plaintiff Marcus R. Ellington (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is 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 Lunes, Reynoso, Polk, Diaz, and

Clark for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and against defendants Lunes and W.

Jones for deprivation of property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

On December 8, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the

unenuemerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. (Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 43.) On June 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed

his opposition, entitled “Notice/Plaintiff’s Renewed Demonstration of Exhaustion of

Administrative Remedies Per-Court Order.” (Pl.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 66.) On July 26, 2010,

1

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 08/03/10 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

27

28

Defendants filed their reply. (Defs.’ Reply, ECF No. 68.) The matter is submitted pursuant to

Local Rule 230(l).

1

II. Summary Of Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

(“CSATF”). On December 27, 2008, at approximately 5 PM, Plaintiff’s cellmate Hill told

registered nurse Giwa during medication distribution that Hill was going to kill himself. (Pl.’s

Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), p. 3.) Hill was removed from his cell to the clinic, where he

informed Defendant Dergeant Lunes that unless Plaintiff was moved, Hill would kill Plaintiff. 

Defendant Lunes ordered Hill moved to another cell, and Plaintiff was placed into a holding cage

at the clinic. (SAC, p. 3.) Defendant Lunes ordered a cell search as punishment for Plaintiff

having a series of cell changes due to his bipolar condition. (SAC ¶ 5.) Defendant Captain

Reynoso is aware that Plaintiff is not a Crip gang member and has difficulty being housed with

Crip gang members, but Reynoso continued to house Plaintiff with Crips. (SAC ¶ 6.) During the

cell search, Defendant W. Jones confiscated and destroyed several of Plaintiff’s items. (SAC ¶

11.)

Defendant Lunes ordered Plaintiff returned to his cell, where Plaintiff found his cell in

shambles. (SAC ¶ 7.) Plaintiff refused to enter his cell. (Id.) Plaintiff was then wheeled back to

the holding cage in at the clinic where Defendant Lunes informed Plaintiff that he was going to

Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”) for threatening Defendant Lunes and that Plaintiff

would be transferred. (SAC ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff was placed in ASU on December 27, 2008. (SAC ¶ 13.) Defendant Lunes

found an old confidential memorandum that included an inmate’s statement that Plaintiff is a

gang member. (SAC ¶ 13.) Defendant Lunes included this memorandum in his supplemental

report to the Rules Violation Report concerning threats. (SAC ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff was provided with the requirements for opposing an unenumerated 12(b) motion in the Court’s

1

second informational order, issued August 24, 2009. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 30, 2010. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Defendants are required to

file a reply within 7 days after the opposition is served. However, it is unclear whether Plaintiff served Defendants

with his opposition. Accordingly, the Court will consider Defendants’ reply.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 08/03/10 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

27

28

Defendant Captain Reynoso reviewed the threat charge and found the charge to be

unsubstantiated. (SAC ¶ 14.) Defendant Reynoso changed the charge to “behavior that might

lead to violence,” despite not having any authority to do so. (SAC ¶ 15.)

On January 23, 2009, Plaintiff was taken to Institutional Classification Committee

(“ICC”) where Defendant Reynoso asked Defendant Polk to retain Plaintiff in ASU and transfer

him because of Defendant Lunes’s report. (SAC ¶ 19.) Defendant Polk did not permit Plaintiff

to speak at the hearing and agreed with Defendant Reynoso’s assessment. (SAC ¶ 20.) 

Plaintiff then contacted Defendant deputy chief warden Diaz and explained to him that

the threat charge which led to Plaintiff’s placement in ad seg had been dismissed and that

Plaintiff should thus be released. Defendant Diaz ordered that Plaintiff be brought to the next

ICC hearing and if there was no other reason to retain Plaintiff in ad seg other than Lunes’s threat

charge, Plaintiff would be released. (SAC ¶ 22.)

On January 29, 2009, Plaintiff was brought before ICC again, with Defendant Diaz

present. (SAC ¶ 23.) Plaintiff was shown for the first time the supplemental report by Lunes.

(SAC ¶ 23.) Plaintiff requested an opportunity to present his cause, and Defendant Diaz ordered

that Plaintiff be brought to the next ICC hearing. (SAC ¶ 23.) Plaintiff at his next ICC hearing

was retained in ASU again by Defendant Polk. (SAC ¶ 25.) Plaintiff had notified Defendants

Diaz, Polk, and Warden Clark that his transfer and ad seg placement were based on a nonexistent threat charge and that it was being done in a retaliatory manner. (SAC ¶ 29.) 

III. Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies

A. Legal Standard

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). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Exhaustion is required

regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process,

3

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 08/03/10 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

27

28

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all

prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (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. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; 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 curiam)). 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. Id. at

1119-20. If the Court concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies,

the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id.

B. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative

grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1 (2010). The process

is initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. § 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. § 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. §§ 3084.5,

3084.6(c). In order to satisfy § 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use this

process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006);

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. Exhaustion does not always require pursuit of an appeal

through the Director’s Level of Review. What is required to satisfy exhaustion is a fact specific

inquiry, and may be dependent upon prison officials’ response to the appeal. See Nunez v.

Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing examples of exceptions to exhaustion

requirement from other circuits); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2005)

(“[E]ntirely pointless exhaustion” not required).

4

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 08/03/10 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

27

28

Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing

his suit. (Defs.’ Mem. P. & A. Support Mot. Dismiss 7:19-8:8.) Defendants submit in support

Exhibit A, inmate grievance No. SATF-09-00271, which concerned Defendants Lunes and

Jones’s actions. (Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, Appeals Coordinator Bob Hall Decl., Ex. A, Inmate

Grievance No. SATF-09-00271.) Plaintiff filed this grievance on January 12, 2009, and it was

received January 14, 2009 by the CSATF Appeals office. The grievance was exhausted at the

Director’s Level on July 1, 2009. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 5, 2009. (Pl.’s

Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff does not dispute that grievance No. SATF-09-00271 was exhausted on July 1,

2009. Plaintiff contends, however, that he has exhausted administrative remedies because he

exhausted his grievance prior to Defendants being served with summons and complaint. (Pl.’s

Opp’n 2.) Plaintiff contends that because actual exhaustion has occurred, there is no reason to

dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff’s contention fails as a matter of law. Controlling Ninth Circuit law interprets §

1997e(a) to “require[ ] exhaustion before the filing of a complaint and that a prisoner does not

comply with this requirement by exhausting available remedies during the course of the

litigation.” McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199. Furthermore, 

[w]hile it is true that requiring dismissal may, in some circumstances, occasion the

expenditure of additional resources on the part of the parties and the court, it

seems apparent that Congress has made a policy judgment that this concern is

outweighed by the advantages of requiring exhaustion prior to the filing of suit. 

Id. at 1200. The undersigned recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice, Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119-20, and does not reach Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s other arguments.2

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to

dismiss, filed December 8, 2009, be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED without

In his opposition, Plaintiff also submits grievance No. SATF-09-00664, which grieved Plaintiff’s

2

retention in the ASU. This grievance was exhausted April 7, 2010. (Pl.’s Opp’n, p. 19.) Plaintiff also failed to

exhaust this grievance prior to filing this action.

5

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 08/03/10 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

27

28

prejudice.

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)(1). 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: August 2, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:09-cv-00054-OWW -DLB Document 70 Filed 08/03/10 Page 6 of 6