Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00330/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00330-13/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

 These findings and recommendations supersede those filed in this action on January 29, 1

2008.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVELLOUS A. X. GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0330 GEB JFM P

vs.

C. D. C., et al., AMENDED

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS1

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss this

action pursuant to the unenumerated provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit

as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants also contend that plaintiff has failed to state a

cognizable claim for relief. 

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed June 15, 2005. 

The amended complaint contains the following allegations. In October 2004, plaintiff filed an

inmate grievance to challenge actions by prison officials in connection with plaintiff’s efforts to

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 47 Filed 02/08/08 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

create a prison newspaper connected to a chess club. Defendant Wagner refused to investigate

plaintiff’s claims unless he withdrew the grievance and used a different process, identified by

plaintiff as “the GA-22 process.” Amended Complaint, filed June 15, 2005, at 3. Plaintiff filed

another grievance and defendant Jackson also refused to investigate that grievance unless the

issues were waived and the request sent on a GA-22 form to an unidentified coach. Id. 

Defendant Runnels refused to answer “all confidential communications via GA-22 and 602s.” 

Id. at 4. Defendants are not allowing plaintiff to publish the chess newspaper. Id. at 4. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Proper

exhaustion of available remedies is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001);

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). The grievance process must be completed before the

inmate files suit; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation will not save an action from

dismissal. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002).

California prison regulations provide administrative procedures in the form of one

informal and three formal levels of review to address an inmate’s claims. See Cal. Code Regs.

tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.7. Administrative procedures generally are exhausted once a plaintiff has

received a “Director’s Level Decision,” or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5.

A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing

suit arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). In

deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, the court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. Defendants bear the

burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. Id. at 1119.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 47 Filed 02/08/08 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 This response appears to have been signed by defendant Wagner. 2

3

In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants have presented evidence that the

appeals office at High Desert State Prison has no record of any inmate grievance filed by plaintiff

concerning any of the claims raised in this action. See Ex. A to Defendants’ Renewed Motion to

Dismiss, filed March 28, 2007, Declaration of Lt. R. Ivicevich, at ¶ 11. In opposition to the

motion, plaintiff has presented a copy of a grievance dated October 7, 2004 that he attempted to

file a grievance with officials at High Desert State Prison (High Desert) concerning the denial of

permission to create “a chess bulletin, chess news letter, and chess materials.” Ex. D to

Plaintiff’s Objection to Renewed Motion to Dismiss, filed April 5, 2007. Therein, he requested a

meeting with “the institution head” to go over his plans for the chess newsletter and chess

matches for inmates at High Desert. Id. On or about October 12, 2004, the Appeals’

Coordinator’s office at High Desert, over the signature blocks of defendants Jackson and

Wagner , screened out this grievance. Id. The form rejecting the grievance states that it was an 2

abuse of the appeal process because plaintiff had “not reasonably demonstrated that [his] appeal

issue(s) has adversely affected his welfare” and that it was “a request for information . . . not an

appeal.” Id. Plaintiff was instructed to use a form GA-22 Inmate Request for Interview. Id. 

Plaintiff also avers, under penalty of perjury, that he sent a form GA-22 to the Warden. 

Plaintiff’s Objection, at 2, 4, 7, 11.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held “that a prisoner

need not press on to exhaust further levels of review once he has either received all ‘available’

remedies at an intermediate level of review or been reliably informed by an administrator that no

remedies are available.” Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005). In the instant case,

plaintiff filed a grievance challenging the denial of his request to create chess publications and

run chess matches. As noted above, the written response to that grievance from the Appeals’

Coordinator’s office at High Desert, apparently prepared by defendant Wagner, informed

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 47 Filed 02/08/08 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

plaintiff that the grievance was an abuse of the appeal process, that the grievance was not an

appeal, and that plaintiff should instead use a form for requesting an interview. Given that

response, plaintiff was not required to proceed further through the administrative appeals process

in an effort to challenge the denial of his request to publish chess materials and run a chess

match. See Brown, id. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim should be denied.

Defendants also contend that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies

for his claims concerning defendant Jackson and Wagner’s alleged refusal to investigate his

grievances about being denied permission to create chess publications and defendant Runnels’

alleged refusal to answer plaintiff’s inmate grievances and requests for interviews. It is

undisputed that plaintiff did not file administrative appeals to challenge these alleged acts and

omissions. However, the October 12, 2004 response to plaintiff’s October 7, 2004 grievance

made it clear to plaintiff that administrative remedies were not available for issues related to his

request for permission to publish chess materials and run chess matches. Having been told that it

was an abuse of the appeals process to attempt to raise the substance of his challenge in that

forum, plaintiff was not required to use the appeals process to grieve that response or the alleged

failure of defendant Runnels’ to respond to plaintiff’s attempts to address the underlying issues

directly with said defendant. 

Finally, defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for

relief against defendants Jackson and Wagner because their involvement in this action was

limited to their alleged roles in processing plaintiff’s grievances concerning his request for

permission to publish chess materials and run chess matches. Defendants contend plaintiff has

no constitutional right to an administrative grievance procedure and, therefore, that he has failed

to state a cognizable claim for relief against defendants Jackson and Wagner.

There are two ways in which acts or omissions related to the processing of inmate

grievances implicate constitutional rights. One is if those acts or omissions interfere with an

inmate’s constitutional right to access the courts. See Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 47 Filed 02/08/08 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

Cir. 1995). The other is if acts or omissions related to the processing of the inmate’s grievance

ratify an underlying constitutional violation. See Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463,

485-486 (9th Cir. 2007).

In the instant case, review of plaintiff’s amended complaint shows that his claim

against defendants Jackson and Wagner is based on allegations that these defendants “refused to

investigate” the claims in his 602s “unless” the 602s were withdrawn and plaintiff instead used a

different form to request an interview. Amended Complaint, at 5. The description of the claim

includes a request that the court find that plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies with

respect to the underlying claim concerning the chess publication. Id.

Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Jackson and Wagner is that they interfered

with his right to access the courts by refusing to process his inmate grievance. That claim is

cognizable in this § 1983 action. See Bradley, supra. For the reasons set forth supra, the record

before the court suggests that the response by defendant Wagner to this grievance demonstrates

that no administrative remedies were available to plaintiff. Nonetheless, defendants have taken

the position that plaintiff failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

with respect to his underlying claim. As long as defendants continue to maintain the position

that there were administrative remedies at a level of review higher than defendant Jackson and

Wagner’s office at High Desert available to plaintiff for his underlying claim, plaintiff’s claim

that the response to his grievance interfered with his right to access the courts should not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ March 28, 2007 motion to dismiss be denied; and

2. Defendants be directed to answer the amended complaint within ten days from

the date of any order by the district court adopting these findings and recommendations. 

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 ten days

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 47 Filed 02/08/08 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

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.” 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). 

DATED: February 7, 2008.

12

gree0330.mtd2amd

Case 2:05-cv-00330-GEB -JFM Document 47 Filed 02/08/08 Page 6 of 6