Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05399/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05399-9/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

THADRON BEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.Y. SPARKMAN, LT.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5399 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc.

26.) 

 Thadron Beal (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action March 9, 2004, naming M.Y. Sparkman as Defendant. 

On December 8, 2005, Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that

Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion. 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Sparkman issued a Rules Violation Report

charging Plaintiff with assault on a fellow inmate in retaliation for Plaintiff’s assisting other

inmates with filing administrative grievances. Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages. 

C. EXHAUSTION

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 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

Case 1:04-cv-05399-OWW -LJO Document 27 Filed 03/22/06 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

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, 534

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). "All 'available' remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need

not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective." ' Porter, 534 U.S. at

524 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n. 5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is

pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy

which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at

3084.1(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.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5 (2004). 

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). In order to meet this

burden, Defendants must show that further administrative remedies are available to Plaintiff. 

Brown v. Valoff, -- F.3d--, 422 F.3d 926, 2005 WL 2129069, *7 (9th Cir.2005). The Ninth

Circuit has also found exhaustion when a prisoner has demonstrated that his grievance has been

rejected as untimely and he could "go no further in the prison's administrative system; no

remedies remained available to him." Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2005). 

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,

Case 1:04-cv-05399-OWW -LJO Document 27 Filed 03/22/06 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

368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)). 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. The Ninth

Circuit has rejected a total exhaustion rule and thus, a court is not required to dismiss an entire

action when a Section 1983 complaint contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Lira v.

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 2005 WL 2850115 (9th Cir. 2005.) 

In this case, Defendants have provided evidence that Plaintiff did not file an

administrative grievance with respect to his retaliation claim at any level within the institution. 

As noted by Defendants, on May 12, 2003, (Log No. 03-1219) Plaintiff appealed the disciplinary

rules violation on the basis that the confidential information used against him was unreliable. 

The informal and formal (first) levels were bypassed. (Exh. B, Motion.) The appeal at the

Second level was partially granted in that a rehearing of the disciplinary violation would occur

and to the extent possible, as much of the confidential information used against him would be

revealed. (Exh. C, Motion.) Following a rehearing on the rules violation report, the committee

found that the videotape did not support the charges against Plaintiff and they were dismissed. 

(Exh. D, Motion.) These inmate appeals, however, do not concern the alleged retaliation by

Defendant Sparkman and thus, do not suffice to exhaust the administrative remedy process.

Defendant’s also provide the Declaration of N. Grannis, Chief, Inmate Appeals Branch,

who indicates that there is no evidence Plaintiff ever filed an appeal at the Director’s level

concerning the alleged retaliation by Plaintiff. (Exh. F, Motion.) 

Finally, as noted by Defendant, Plaintiff concedes in his Complaint that at the time he

initiated this action, the exhaustion process was not completed. (Complaint at 2.) The

Complaint references attachments showing that on October 29, 2003, Plaintiff completed an

inmate appeal concerning Defendant Sparkman’s conduct, however, the appeal was not assigned

a log number because of Plaintiff’s noncompliance with inmate appeal procedures. (Court Doc.

2, Exhs. 2, 3.) The Court notes, however, that the appeal does not allege that Defendant

Sparkman retaliated against Plaintiff for exercise of right to help other inmates file grievances. 

Case 1:04-cv-05399-OWW -LJO Document 27 Filed 03/22/06 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

Thus, even had the appeal been successfully filed, it did not concern the allegations made in this

action. 

Moreover, Plaintiff concedes in his Complaint that he did not exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to the filing of this action. As noted above, exhaustion must occur prior to filing

suit and may not occur while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201

(9th Cir.2002). As such, dismissal of the action is warranted. 

D. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss the action on the

grounds Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies be GRANTED and the action

DISMISSED.

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05399-OWW -LJO Document 27 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 4