Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05890/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05890-7/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

JASON GERAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.R. ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05890-AWI DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

BE GRANTED

(Doc. 41)

OBJECTIONS DUE AUGUST 27, 2007

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff is a former 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 amended complaint,

filed August 21, 2003, against defendants Andrews, Beebe, Berry, Galaviz, Hernandez, Mazon-Alec,

Scribner and Weaver for the denial of outdoor exercise, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On

October 17, 2006, 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 in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants also argue the

complaint fails to state a claim upon which can be granted. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 18,

2007 and defendants filed a reply on April 24, 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

Case 1:03-cv-05890-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 4
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

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

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. 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he filed an inmate appeal and completed the

Case 1:03-cv-05890-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 4
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

grievance process. 

In their motion, defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal of this action because

plaintiff failed to pursue his appeal to the third and final level of review. In support of their motion,

defendants submit evidence that plaintiff received a first formal level decision and a second level

decision, but when he filed the appeal at the Director’s level, it was rejected as untimely. Grannis

Dec. E. A, ¶5. Because plaintiff failed to comply with the CDCR’s grievance procedure, defendants

argue, he failed to exhaust his claim and this action should be dismissed. See Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006) 

Defendants have met their burden as the parties moving for dismissal. The burden therefore

shifts to plaintiff. Plaintiff may not simply rely on allegations in the complaint, and must instead,

oppose the motion by setting forth specific facts in declaration(s) and other evidence regarding the

exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(e); Ritza, 837 F.2d at 369. 

In his opposition, plaintiff attaches the letter dated January 15, 2004, from Mr. Grannis,

returning his appeal and explaining that the appeal must be submitted within 15 workings days of

the event or decision being appeal. Plaintiff’s Opp., Ex. A1f. Plaintiff asserts that submission of

the appeal to the Director’s level constitutes exhaustion. 

“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion

requirement may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . .

appeal.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance

with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. at 2386. Plaintiff has

submitted no evidence that he timely submitted the appeal to the Director’s Level of review for

consideration. Moreover, even if the letter from Grannis satisfied the exhaustion requirement, the

letter is dated, January 15, 2004, more than 6 months after this action was filed. 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. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to dismissal of this action based on plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust.

///

Case 1:03-cv-05890-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 4
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

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’ motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed October 17, 2006, be GRANTED, and this action be dismissed,

without 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)(l). On or before August

27, 2007, 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 1, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05890-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 4