Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00362/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00362-6/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

DAYTON LIVELY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-0362-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. 26)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Dayton Lively 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 amended

complaint filed on October 18, 2005, against defendants Halberg, Hoyt, Grandy, Swetich, Gonzalez,

Cuoto, Comfort, Oftedahl and Martinez for denial of due process. On July 9, 2007, pursuant to the

unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants Swetich, Grandy,

Comfort, Couto, Oftedahl, Martinez and Hall filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure

to exhaust the available administrative remedies. On July 26, 2007, defendants Hoyt and Halberg

filed a joinder to the motion. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.

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

Case 1:05-cv-00362-LJO-DLB Document 32 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

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.

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

Case 1:05-cv-00362-LJO-DLB Document 32 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

that there is no record of an appeal concerning the due process claims against them. Jones Dec. ¶3-5;

Grannis Dec., ¶3.) As noted, plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. 

Defendants have submitted evidence that there is no record of a director’s level appeal filed

by plaintiff concerning the claims in this action. Defendants’ evidence is sufficient to shift the

burden to plaintiff to demonstrate that he did exhaust. Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion or

otherwise demonstrate that he did file an inmate appeal and exhaust the process regarding his claims

against defendants. 

D. Conclusion

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

Rule 12(b) motions, filed July 9, 2007 and July 26, 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 1:05-cv-00362-LJO-DLB Document 32 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3