Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00163/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00163-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS WATERBURY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-0163-LJO-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND THIS

ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 17)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Thomas Waterbury is a state prisoner 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

complaint filed on February 14, 2006, against defendants for denial of due process. On May 18,

2007, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants

filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on June 14, 2007.

B. 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, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief

Case 1:06-cv-00163-LJO-DLB Document 21 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, 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, 127 S.Ct. at 921; 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

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2007). 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). In order to satisfy section

1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to

filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal because plaintiff did not file an inmate

appeal grieving his due process against them. In support of their motion, defendants submit evidence

that there is no record of an appeal concerning the due process claims against them. Cano Dec. ¶11;

Grannis Dec., ¶11.) 

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that defendants have not met their burden because he was

Case 1:06-cv-00163-LJO-DLB Document 21 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

housed at Lancaster State Prison when he exhausted his claims and therefore the appeals would not

be at Corcoran State Prison. 

Plaintiff’s position that defendants did not meet their burden is incorrect. As noted, there are

four level of appeals. Defendants have submitted evidence that there is no record of a director’s

level appeal filed by plaintiff concerning the claim in this action. Even if plaintiff started the appeal

process in Lancaster, there would be record of the appeal at the director’s level if he had in fact

exhausted the administration process. Defendants’ evidence is sufficient to shift the burden to

plaintiff to demonstrate that he did exhaust. Plaintiff has set forth no legitimate evidentiary

objections concerning the declarations of Cano and Grannis, and has set forth no evidence

demonstrating that he did file an inmate appeal and exhaust the process. Arguments or contentions

set forth in a responding brief do not constitute evidence, see Coverdell v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health

Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 1987) (recitation of unsworn facts not evidence). Finally,

plaintiff’s conclusory statements that he did exhaust the adminsitrative process is insufficient to

defeat defendants’ motion. 

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’ unenumerated

Rule 12(b) motion, filed May 18, 2007, be GRANTED and this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

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: December 18, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00163-LJO-DLB Document 21 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3