Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05563/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05563-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO HERNANDEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. CLAY, 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5563 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(b)

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 35.) 

 Armando Hernandez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 6, 2003. On May 30, 2003, the Court found the

Complaint stated a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendant Clay. Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint on June 2, 2003. On June 30, 2003, the Court issued an Amended Order

finding the Amended Complaint stated a cognizable retaliation, excessive force, and assault and

battery claim against Defendant Clay. 

On September 19, 2003, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss

on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his

excessive force claim. The Court, on May 28, 2004, issued Findings and Recommendations that

the Motion be granted on the excessive force and assault and battery claim. The Court further

recommended that Defendant’s be granted the opportunity to file a Motion to Dismiss regarding

Case 1:03-cv-05563-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 06/20/05 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

27

28

2

the retaliation claim. The Findings and Recommendations were adopted by the District Court on

September 13, 2004. 

On October 13, 2004, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the retaliation claim. Plaintiff did not oppose the

Motion. 

B. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by

the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative

process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

741 (2001). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing

to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. 

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy

which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at

3084.1(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.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5 (2004). 

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

Case 1:03-cv-05563-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 06/20/05 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

27

28 1

Plaintiff grieved the confiscation of his property to the Director’s level. (Exh. B, Motion to Dismiss.) 

3

exhaustion. 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. 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. ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that the retaliation claim is unexhausted. Plaintiff filed two appeals

against Officer Clay, one on October 23, 2002, (log # 03-00106) and one on December 18, 2002,

(Log # 02-01983). The second appeal, Log # 02-01983, clearly concerned the search and

confiscation of Plaintiff’s property on October 22, 2002, and the request that the property be

returned to him.1 (Exh. B, Motion to Dismiss.) 

In Plaintiff’s first appeal, Log # 03-00106, Plaintiff alleged only that on October 22,

2002, Officer Clay verbally harassed him and threatened him in retaliation for his assisting

inmates with legal work. (Attach 1, Exh. A). When Plaintiff submitted his appeal to the

Director’s level, he raised, for the first time, his retaliation claim concerning the events that

occurred on October 25, 2002, and are the remaining subject of this action. The Director’s

decision, dated August 26, 2003, did not address the October 25, 2002, events. Thus, Plaintiff

has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this retaliation claim. 

In addition, Defendant argues even were the Court to deem the claim exhausted, the case

must still be dismissed as any purported exhaustion did not occur prior to Plaintiff’s filing of the

instant action on May 6, 2003. 

Defendants have met their burden as the parties moving for dismissal for failure to

exhaust. The burden now shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate that he satisfied the exhaustion

Case 1:03-cv-05563-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 06/20/05 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

27

28

4

requirement set forth in section 1997e(a).

As noted above, Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion to Dismiss. The Court has reviewed

the Amended Complaint and other than Plaintiff’s statement that he did exhaust, there is no

evidence in the record to dispute Defendant’s assertions and evidence. 

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on October 22, 2002, Defendant Clay

conducted a locker search and confiscated personal property. On October 25, 2002, following a

discussion with Defendant Clay regarding the property confiscation, Defendant Clay assaulted

him for assisting other inmates with their legal work. (Amended Complaint at 2-4.) As noted

above, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that the excessive force and assault and

battery claims be dismissed from the action for Plaintiff’s having failed to exhaust them via the

administrative grievance process. Thus, the allegations at issue in the Motion before the Court

concern Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant Clay beat him on October 25, 2002, in retaliation

for his assisting other inmates with their legal work. 

The Court has examined the documentation provided by Defendants and concludes that

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his retaliation claim. 

Although Plaintiff did raise the October 25, 2002, beating in his appeal at the Director’s level,

the grievance initiated concerned the confiscation of Plaintiff’s property. In addition, the

Director did not exercise its discretion and review and address Plaintiff’s allegations concerning

the incident of October 25, 2002. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s inmate appeal did not

place prison personnel on notice that Defendant Clay beat him in retaliation for his assisting

inmates with legal work. For this reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s inmate appeal did not

exhaust the claim at issue in this action.

Assuming, without deciding, that raising, for the first time, a claim at the Director’s level

satisfies the exhaustion requirement, Plaintiff did not complete exhaustion prior to seeking relief

in this court as required by the Ninth Circuit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201

(9th Cir. 2002) (Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit.). In this instance, although Plaintiff

filed the second appeal wherein he raised his retaliation claim for the first time at the Director’s

level, the appeal was not completed until August 26, 2003, when the Director issued its decision

Case 1:03-cv-05563-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 06/20/05 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

27

28

5

and well after the instant suit was initiated. Thus, the Court also finds that Defendant is entitled

to dismissal of this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust prior to filing suit.

D. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss the case based on

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust be GRANTED and the case DISMISSED. 

These Findings and Recommendations are ORDERED submitted to the United States

District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with a copy of 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed within

TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The

Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05563-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 06/20/05 Page 5 of 5