Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00833/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00833-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR BLACKNELL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0833 FCD GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY,

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. This case was originally filed in Solano County Superior Court, on February 15, 2006,

alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,

as well as various state law claims, by defendants. Defendant R. Martinez removed this action to

federal court on April 18, 2006, on the basis that this court has original jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant Martinez averred

that she was the only named and served defendant at the time. On June 19, 2006, the court

directed defendants to file a responsive pleading to plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant Martinez

filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to non-enumerated 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 10
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

 Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file his opposition by Order, filed on 1

August 15, 2006.

 By Order, filed on September 5, 2006, defendant was granted a short extension of time. 2

 The page numbers cited correspond with the pagination in the court’s electronic docket. 3

25, 2006. Defendant Martinez filed a reply on September 6, 2006. Thereafter, on November 1 2

13, 2006, defendant California Medical Facility-Vacaville (CMF) filed a notice of removal of

this action to federal court and joined in the removal by defendant Martinez. On November 14,

2006, defendant CMF filed a notice of joinder in the previously filed motion to dismiss brought

by defendant Martinez. 

Complaint

Plaintiff names as defendants the California Medical Facility (CMF),

[Correctional] Officer (C/O) [R.] Martinez and the California Department of Corrections (now

CDCR). Evidently, as noted above, only defendant Martinez and CMF have been properly

served; thus, this action proceeds against defendants Martinez and CMF. On or about October

26, 2004, at about 1400 hours (2:00 p.m.), plaintiff exited the shower area of the Dorm 5

bathroom of CMF’s Modular Housing Unit. Taking two steps out, plaintiff placed his left foot

on the wooden floor, which had apparently been weakened by water leakage and which gave

way, trapping plaintiff’s left foot in the hole which formed. Plaintiff fell forward, hitting his

head on a large sink used by inmates to wash their laundry, and lost consciousness for about half

an hour. Plaintiff lay unconscious without receiving any medical attention from defendants. 

Complaint (Cmpl.), p. 7, & Exhibit (Exh.) A, medical records documenting plaintiff’s injury. 

3

On regaining consciousness, plaintiff observed defendant Martinez stepping on

one of the boards in order to increase the pressure upon plaintiff’s foot and ankle. Correctional

Officer (C/O) Hart, not a defendant, photographed the incident area and the removal process

plaintiff underwent. Plaintiff’s rescue necessitated the use of a chain saw by a rescue team from

the local fire department. Plaintiff was transported to medical facilities and later required further

medical treatment for head injuries he had sustained, causing persistent distortions of his vision,

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 10
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

headaches and acute photosensitivity. Cmpl., pp. 7-8.

Plaintiff claims that several work orders had been placed for the purpose of fixing

the area of the incident but defendants failed to make repairs. Repairs were only initiated after

plaintiff suffered his injuries. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, by their actions or inactions,

subjected plaintiff to violations of his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments; he claims he suffered cruel and unusual punishment and a deprivation of his right

to equal protection. He makes various additional state law claims against defendants, including,

apparently, that they are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. 

Plaintiff seeks money damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages. Cmpl., pp.

8-14. 

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move for dismissal, pursuant to non-enumerated Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b),

contending that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before proceeding in

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Legal Standard under Non-Enumerated Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)

In a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under nonenumerated Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants “have the burden of

raising and proving exhaustion.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The

parties may go outside the pleadings, submitting affidavits or declarations under penalty of

perjury, but plaintiff must be provided with notice of his opportunity to develop a record. Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14. When an action originates in this court, plaintiff is provided,

inter alia, specific notice of his opportunity to develop a record in the service order. In the

instance, as here, of a case removed from state court to federal court, no service order is filed. 

However, defendant Martinez by her motion provided sufficient notice, per Wyatt, supra, in her

notice of motion, that the court may look beyond the pleadings to decide disputed issues of fact

when ruling on a motion by defendant pursuant to non-enumerated 12(b) of the Federal Rules of

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 3 of 10
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

Civil Procedure; the court granted plaintiff an extension of time to file his opposition to the

motion (see footnote 1); and plaintiff has, in fact, submitted exhibits beyond the pleadings as part

of his opposition. The court, therefore, deems plaintiff to have received notice sufficient to

satisfy the requisites of Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14. 

Should defendants submit declarations and/or other documentation demonstrating

an absence of exhaustion, making a prima facie showing, plaintiff must refute that showing. 

Plaintiff may rely upon statements made under the penalty of perjury in the complaint if the

complaint shows that plaintiff has personal knowledge of the matters stated and plaintiff calls to

the court’s attention those parts of the complaint upon which plaintiff relies. If the court

determines that plaintiff has failed to exhaust, dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate

remedy for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120.

PLRA Requirements

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PARA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that, 

“[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.” Inmates seeking injunctive relief

must exhaust administrative remedies. Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999). In Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001), the Supreme Court held that inmates must

exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures. 532 U.S. at 741, 121 S. Ct. at 1825. Therefore, inmates seeking money damages

must also completely exhaust their administrative remedies. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

121 S. Ct. 1819 (inmates seeking money damages are required to exhaust administrative

remedies even where the grievance process does not permit awards of money damages). 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions until

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198

(9th Cir. 2002).

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 4 of 10
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

 The relevant documents actually appear to be part of plaintiff’s Exh. A to his complaint.

4

 Defendants incorrectly note the date of the denial as June 13, 2005. 5

 The court has confirmed that defendants are correct, although plaintiff’s pleadings and 6

his address of record indicated that he was housed at CMF. 

Administrative Exhaustion Procedure

In order for California prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies, they 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 of the California Department of Corrections. Barry v. Ratelle,

985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final

decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Id. at 1237-38.

Defendants’ Contentions

Defendants state that plaintiff, on April 13, 2005, presented a claim for damages

to the CDCR under the California Tort Claim Act, Cal. Govt. Code § 910, citing Exh. D to 4

plaintiff’s complaint. Motion to Dismiss (MTD), p. 2. Plaintiff was informed that his tort claim

was denied on June 16, 2005, by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims

Board. Id. 5

Defendants have noted that plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison

(CSP)-Solano, MTD, p. 2, and also that defendant Martinez is employed there. Defendants aver 6

in their motion that plaintiff filed his complaint in Solano County Superior Court on December

21, 2005. Id. In their separate notices of removal, however, both defendants Martinez and CMF

state that the action was commenced in state court on February 15, 2006. See defendants’ notices

of removal, filed on 4/18/06 and 11/13/06, respectively. While this disparity is ultimately

insignificant in this case, which was removed to this court in April of 2006, the court observes

that defendants’ varying representations are not helpful.

\\\\\ 

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 5 of 10
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

In support of their motion, defendants contend that plaintiff did not file any

inmate appeal related to prison conditions or the alleged deliberate indifference to his serious

medical needs. MTD, p. 4. Defendants include a declaration from defendants’ counsel, Jay

Russell, submitting as Exh. A to his affidavit, the declaration of the custodian of records at CSPSolano, and as Exh. B, the inmate appeals tracking system log for level I and level II appeals

from plaintiff’s Central File. The log shows, according to defendants, that the only grievance

completed through the second level concerned custody/classification issues. Id. More important,

defendants maintain, plaintiff did not exhaust his grievance to the third level, citing the

declaration of Chief of Inmate Appeals, N. Grannis, to which a screen out query for plaintiff is

attached as Exh. A, which indicates that no grievance of plaintiff’s was accepted at the third

level. Defendants assert that plaintiff completely failed to file any administrative appeal related

to the defendants’ alleged actions. MTD, p. 4.

Plaintiff’s Opposition

Plaintiff states that on November 1, 2005, after several unsuccessful efforts, he

submitted a 602 inmate grievance concerning the October 26, 2004, incident at issue, seeking a

copy of the “837 incident report,” and other documents pertinent to the injury that plaintiff

complains of in this civil rights action. Opposition (Opp.), p. 1. Plaintiff includes as the first

page to his Exh. A to Opp., a copy of his request written to the appeal coordinator, dated

10/18/05, noting that he had previously sent a 602 appeal on 10/10/05, which was returned as

incomplete for lack of supporting documentation. Plaintiff sent the appeal for the very reason

that he had not received a response from the records department for documents he needed 

regarding the subject 10/26/04 incident. Opp., pp. 1-2. Plaintiff includes a copy of his 602

grievance, appeal no. CSP-S-05-03070, dated 11/1/05, and stamped received on 11/03/05,

wherein plaintiff makes clear that he is seeking a copy of the “837 incident report” concerning

the events of 10/26/04 from his file, including as well the fire captain’s report and the photos

from C/O Hart. Opp., pp. 2, 9. Stamps on the appeal indicate that it bypassed the informal and

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 6 of 10
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

first level of appeal. Id. Nevertheless, at Exh. B, plaintiff includes a copy of a memorandum,

dated 11/16/05, a first level response to appeal no. CSP-S-05-03070, making it very clear that it

was understood that plaintiff sought documentation related to the incident of 10/26/04, but that

such documentation was not in plaintiff’s central file:

You stated that while you were housed at CMF you received

injuries in a work-related accident. You stated that you fell

through a floor, the fire department had to respond to dig you out,

which took approximately four hours. You further stated that you

were taken by ambulance to an outside hospital as a result of the

injuries you have sustained. You state you are still dealing with

injuries suffered in this accident. 

..................................................................................................

Your appeal is partly granted; you were provided the opportunity

for an Olsen review. Documents that you are requesting are not

located in your inmate central file.

Opp., p. 12.

Although plaintiff takes issue with this recounting of the facts, maintaining, for

example, that the accident was not work-related, it is inescapable that plaintiff is seeking material

plainly related to the events at issue herein. Although the memorandum is dated 11/16/05,

plaintiff evidently did not receive a response to this grievance until 12/5/05. Opp., pp. 2, 10. 

Plaintiff states that he submitted an appeal to the second level on 1/7/06, but the copy of the

grievance itself indicates it was submitted on 12/7/05. Opp., pp. 2, 10. In any event, the subject

of the grievance at this point was that plaintiff could not believe that there was no record or any

data about the unusual and serious events of 10/26/04, in his central file. Id. Plaintiff received a

second level appeal response, on 2/17/06, with a memorandum dated 1/26/06, re-capping what

plaintiff sought as set forth above, partially granting the appeal to the extent of having provided

plaintiff with the opportunity to review his file, reminding him that he was advised at the first

level to appeal to CMF staff for his requested documents, and reiterating that the documents he

sought were not in his file. Opp., pp. 2, 14-15. 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 7 of 10
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

Plaintiff appealed to the third level on 3/1/06, receiving a response dated 5/2/06,

informing plaintiff, with or without irony, that his appeal was being returned as incomplete

because it did not include the “CDC 837, Incident Report (from CMF)” or the hospital records. 

Opp., pp., 2, 10, 18.

Reply

Defendants maintain that plaintiff filed this action prior to having completed the

requisite administrative exhaustion. 

 Discussion

The court’s review of the level I and II log submitted by defendants confirms that

plaintiff completed through the second level of review, appeal no. CSP-S-05-03070, on February

17, 2006, concerning, according to the log a custody/classification issue, and that both first and

second levels of review were a partial grant. The screen out log that defendants have filed shows

that appeal no. CSP-S-05-03070 was received at the third level on March 6, 2006, and a

response/rejection was mailed out on May 2, 2006. 

Plaintiff complains that the prison, in processing his appeals, gave him the runaround, and there is some evidence of that in the grievance responses. For the third level

rejection to be that plaintiff had not submitted documents which he had fruitlessly sought at both

the first and second levels of appeal appears disingenuous. On the other hand, plaintiff offers no

explanation for why he did not seek the supporting documentation for his claim in the manner

that he was advised to do in the lower level appeal responses, that is, why he did not file an

appeal directed to CMF, rather than persist in seeking documents that perhaps should have been,

but which he had twice confirmed were not, in his central file. The third level appeal response,

indeed, hints that the incident report at issue was at CMF. Plaintiff’s reliance on Ngo v.

Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005), wherein the Ninth Circuit found that where an

administrative appeal deemed time-barred by the prison appeals coordinator, with no further

appeal left within the prison grievance process, rendered an inmate’s claims administratively

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 8 of 10
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

exhausted for PARA purposes, is inapposite, in no small part because that case has been

overruled by the United States Supreme Court. See, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct.

2378 (2006) (holding that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that the prisoner

complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules). 

Nevertheless, on this showing, this court would find that plaintiff had exhausted his

administrative remedies, notwithstanding the putative rejection of the third level grievance

because the particular circumstances of this case militate for such a finding even though plaintiff

did not word his grievance as a straightforward appeal of the incident itself, because the

gravamen of his appeal was patently evident, or should have been, to all reviewers. 

However, the undersigned is foreclosed from finding adequate administrative

exhaustion on another ground. Even taking the latest date that defendants posit as the filing date

of the instant complaint, February 15, 2006, in state court (rather than the December 2005 date

for which insufficient evidence is provided), plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies before bringing this action. In fact, this court has only to look to the date that the action

was removed and filed in this court, April 18, 2006, to determine that the action, even if initiated

as late as that date would have been premature, because the date of the third level response was

May 2, 2006. As noted, supra, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be brought

with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, supra, 311 F.3d 1198. This result is dictated even if plaintiff’s

action had not been removed from state court. See Wright v. State, 122 Cal. App. 4th 659, 664,

19 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 92 (2004) (“[u]nder both state and federal law, a prisoner must exhaust

available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief”).

One final issue remains, and that is: should the case be remanded to state court

for further prosecution of plaintiff’s state tort claims which are before this court only pursuant to

supplemental jurisdiction. The court finds that a remand is appropriate.

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 9 of 10
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

As set forth earlier, plaintiff must exhaust for any federal law claim such

administrative remedies as are available. Federally mandated exhaustion is not required for state

law tort claims, and it appears that plaintiff has taken steps under state law to comply with state

law exhaustion requirements. It would be inappropriate in this case removed from state court in

the first place to simply dismiss the entire action without also remanding the otherwise

potentially valid state law claim to state court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to

dismiss, filed on July 7, 2006, be granted for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, and this action be dismissed, without prejudice and remanded to state court.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: 2/20/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

blac0833.mtd

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 02/20/07 Page 10 of 10