Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03696/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03696-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC EL,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. DIXON,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-3696 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Eric El, currently a prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant has moved to dismiss on the ground that El failed to

exhaust administrative remedies before filing the action. El has not opposed the motion, but

earlier had filed a document explaining his view of the exhaustion issue. The action will be

dismissed because administrative remedies were not exhausted before it was filed. 

BACKGROUND

El alleged in his complaint that defendant Dixon used excessive force on him on

September 29, 2005, at Salinas Valley State Prison. The complaint alleged that El was in his cell

and "passed out" with part of his body in the food port of his cell due to the lack of air

circulation in his cell. Complaint, p. 4. Defendant correctional officer ("C/O") Dixon allegedly

approached the cell, gave direct orders for El to move out of the food port, and squirted El twice

with pepper spray when El did not respond to the orders. El alleged that he had not responded

to the pepper spray because he was unconscious.

Case 3:06-cv-03696-SI Document 18 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

El received a CDC-115 rule violation report for the incident for willfully obstructing a

peace officer. A disciplinary hearing was held. El pled not guilty and stated that his cell-mate

put him in the food port to get air. Sciandra Decl., Exh. A. He was found guilty and assessed

90 days credit forfeiture for the offense. The CDC-115 is marked as having been given to the

inmate on November 14 or 19, 2005. 

El filed a CDC-602 inmate appeal dated November 30, 2005, in which he complained of

excessive use of force by C/O Dixon for spraying him with pepper spray. He did not complain

about the disciplinary decision or any procedural problems in the disciplinary proceeding. The

CDC-602 appeal form is marked as having been received by prison officials on December 6,

2005. The appeal was screened out and returned to El with the notations that it was not

completed properly and was not timely. See Complaint, unnumbered exhibit. The form used

to screen out the appeal had a pre-printed message at the bottom: "This screening action may not

be appealed. If you allege the above reason is inaccurate, then attach an explanation on a

separate piece of paper, or use the back of this screen out – do not write any more on the appeal

itself. Please return this form to the Appeals Coordinator with the necessary information

attached." Id. El did nothing thereafter to pursue his inmate appeal. 

DISCUSSION

"No 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

State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal administratively "any

departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely

affecting their welfare." See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available

administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of

appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3)

second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third level appeal to the Director

Case 3:06-cv-03696-SI Document 18 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of the California Department of Corrections. See id. § 3084.5; Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S. Ct.

2378, 2383 (2006); Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997).

Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534

U.S. 516, 524 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation omitted). Even

when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably money damages,

exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The statute

requires "proper exhaustion" of available administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S. Ct. 2378, 2387 (2006).

A prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a matter in abatement.

Defendant has the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion, and may do so by

way of an unenumerated Rule12(b) motion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

2003). "In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court

may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact." Id. at 1119-20, citing Ritza

v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988). The court

can decide factual issues in a jurisdictional or related type of motion because there is no right

to a jury trial as to that portion of the case, unlike the merits of the case (where there is a right

to a jury trial). See id. Wyatt and Ritza allow this court to resolve factual disputes, but only

with regard to the exhaustion issue. 

El did not exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. His inmate appeal never

made it to the director's level because it was screened out at the first level as untimely. He

argues that his appeal was not untimely because he was waiting for the CDC-115 to be

completed before he filed his appeal. This argument fails for two reasons. First, the inmate

appeal did not even mention the CDC-115 or the discipline imposed and did not depend on the

outcome of the disciplinary proceedings to be ripe for appeal. El's claim in his inmate appeal

was that Dixon had used excessive force, and not that he should not have been disciplined or that

the disciplinary proceedings were defective. Second, El's argument is made too late. El did not

Case 3:06-cv-03696-SI Document 18 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

make his argument in his inmate appeals process, notwithstanding the direction on the screening

form that instructed the inmate how to challenge a decision that screened out the appeal for a

procedural problem such as untimeliness. When his inmate appeal was screened out, El did not

pursue the matter further and did not tell the inmate appeal screener that he had been waiting for

the CDC-115 to be resolved before he appealed. 

A prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement "by filing of an untimely or

otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal." Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S. Ct. at 2382. A prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with

the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal

court. See id. at 2384. El did not. His inmate appeal at the first level was untimely and rejected

for that reason. El never received a director's level decision, as required for exhaustion of

administrative remedies by a California prisoner. Defendant has carried his burden to prove that

El did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement with regard to his Eighth Amendment claim against

defendant Dixon. The action must be dismissed without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED because plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies before filing this action. (Docket # 12.) This action is dismissed

without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03696-SI Document 18 Filed 01/23/08 Page 4 of 4