Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00574/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00574-5/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 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on May 2, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 41.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL SHERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KRAMER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0574-AWI DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED AND THIS

ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 15)

I. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff 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 complaint, filed April 22,

2005, against defendant Kramer (“defendant”) for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on

alleged exposure to second hand smoke at Sierra Conservation Center. On August 7, 2006, pursuant

to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendant filed a motion to

dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not

filed an opposition to the motion. 

1

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00574-AWI -DLB Document 17 Filed 11/27/06 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

B. Exhaustion Requirement

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).

Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.

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.

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

Plaintiff, alleges that in November 2004, he arrived at Sierra Conservation Center and was

exposed to second-hand smoke in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. He also alleges that

he filed grievances but received no response. Defendant moves to dismiss this action on the ground

that plaintiff did not exhaust the claim against him, as mandated by section 1997e(a). In support of

his motion, defendant submits evidence that the appeals office at Sierra Conservation Center where

the alleged exposure took place and the California Men’s Colony, where plaintiff is currently

Case 1:05-cv-00574-AWI -DLB Document 17 Filed 11/27/06 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

incarcerated have no record of an appeal filed by plaintiff concerning his alleged exposure to second

hand smoke and that the Inmate Appeals Branch, which issues decisions at the final level of review,

does not have any record of an appeal filed by plaintiff concerning his claim against defendant.

(Motion, Doc. 16, Allen Dec., ¶8; Engler Dec., ¶ 3, Grannis Dec., ¶7.)

The Court finds that defendant has met his burden as the party moving for dismissal. The

burden therefore shifts to plaintiff to set forth evidence demonstrating that he satisfied the exhaustion

requirement. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss nor does his complaint

provide any evidence demonstrating he satisfied the exhaustion requirement. 

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff did not exhaust the available

administrative remedies concerning his claim against defendant. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that defendant’s unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed August 7, 2006, be

GRANTED and this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

the available administrative remedies. 

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 twenty (20)

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: November 22, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00574-AWI -DLB Document 17 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 3