Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01595-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ANDREW HALL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1595 DFL KJM P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed his original complaint on July 30, 2003 and his third amended

complaint on December 8, 2003. 

On December 13, 2004, defendants Alameida, Runnels, McDonald, Minnick

Norguard, Cook, Fleming, Iannone, McCoy, Harden, Hitchock, Rush and Abamonga filed a

motion to dismiss, alleging plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

I. Allegations Of The Complaint

In the third amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants Fleming,

Iannone, McCoy and Harden beat him up and wrote a false report about the incident; and that

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 7
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 1

 Citations to the complaint are to the attachment to the form complaint. 

2

defendant Abamonga refused to give him medical treatment as he lay on the ground, bleeding

from the face, and then falsified the medical reports. Compl. at 4.1

Defendant Hitchcock allegedly used unnecessary force on plaintiff’s arm on

November 5, 2003. Id. Defendant Rush tampered with plaintiff’s food. Id.

On July 8, 2003, plaintiff alleges defendants Alameida, Runnels, McDonald,

Minnick, Norguard and Cook implemented a racist policy, set forth in a California Department of

Corrections (CDC) memorandum, by ordering African American inmates to be locked-down

following a melee with skinheads and Nazis, and then requiring African Americans to participate

in anger management classes before being released from the lock-down, even though not all

African Americans had been involved and other racial groups were not required to participate in

the classes. Compl. at 1. 

II. The Prison Litigation Reform Act And Administrative Remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that 

[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under

section 1983 with respect to prison conditions under section 1983

of this title . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other

correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.

28 U.S.C § 1997e(a). “Conditions of confinement” subject to exhaustion have been defined

broadly as “the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in

prisons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2); Smith v. Zachary, 255 F.3d 446, 449 (7th Cir. 2001), cert

denied, 535 U.S. 906 (2002); see also Lawrence v. Goord, 304 F.3d 198, 200 (2d Cir. 2002). To

satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a grievance must alert prison officials to the claims the

plaintiff has included in the complaint. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002) (purpose

of exhaustion requirement is to give officials “time and opportunity to address complaints

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 7
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

3

internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case”); Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1209

(11th Cir. 2000) (“1997e(a) requires that a prisoner provide as much relevant information as he

reasonably can in the administrative grievance process”). Exhaustion of available remedies is

mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing

suit arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). In

deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, the court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. Defendant bears the

burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. Id. at 1119.

The California prison grievance procedure has several layers, culminating in the

third, or Director’s, level review. Cal.Code Regs tit. 15, §§ 3084.1- 3084.5. Administrative

procedures generally are exhausted once a plaintiff has received a “Director’s Level Decision,” or

third level review, with respect to his issues or claims, unless a step of the grievance process is

not available to plaintiff. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. 

The regulations contain time limits both for the inmate and the institution. Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6. Once an inmate’s grievance is timely filed (within fifteen working

days of the event or decision being appealed or of receiving an unacceptable lower level

decision), an informal response is to be completed within ten working days, a first level response

within thirty working days, second level within twenty working days, and a third within sixty

working days of receipt of the grievance or appeal. Id., §§ 3084.6(a) & (b)(1)-(4). In general, all

available steps must be completed before a civil rights action is filed; exhaustion during the

pendency of the litigation will not save a claim or an action from dismissal. McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). However, in Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.

2005), the Ninth Circuit recently has held that an inmate has exhausted all available remedies

even when a grievance is rejected as time-barred because no further level of appeal remains

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 7
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 2

 Runnels is misidentified in the grievance as “Reynolds.” See Hall Depo. at 77:15-23.

4

available in the prison grievance system. 

III. Analysis

A. Grievances Plaintiff Submitted

Defendants have submitted the declarations of D. Jackson, appeals coordinator for

High Desert State Prison (HDSP), and N. Grannis, chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch in

Sacramento, which handles the Director’s Level determinations of grievance appeals, as well as

plaintiff’s deposition taken October 29, 2004 in support of their motion to dismiss. 

Jackson avers that plaintiff submitted fifteen grievances between July 1, 2003 and

December 31, 2003, which were “screened out” or rejected for failure to comply with the

regulations concerning grievances and returned to plaintiff without further processing. 

Declaration of D. Jackson in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (Jackson Decl.) ¶¶ 3-4. Four grievances

were accepted: numbers 03-1377, 03-1769, 02-2053, 03-2083. Id. ¶¶ 5-9.

Attached to Jackson’s declaration are copies of the grievances accepted and 

associated documents. In grievance 03-1377, plaintiff complains that various correctional

officials, including Runnels,2 McDonald, Harden and Minnick, failed to prevent the June 2003

melee and then placed African American inmates on lockdown without due process. Jackson

Decl., Ex. 1 (grievance form). Plaintiff pursued this grievance through the Director’s Level

review, which was completed on December 22, 2003. Id. (Director’s Level decision);

Declaration of N. Grannis in Supp. Of Mot. To Dismiss (Grannis Decl.) ¶ 6. At his deposition,

plaintiff said that his other grievances about the lockdown were “the ones that wasn’t processed

 . . . or they sent them back and rejected them.” Deposition of Gregory Hall (Hall Depo.) at

76:14-16. 

In grievance 03-1769, plaintiff describes being beaten by defendants Iannone,

McCoy and Fleming on August 10, 2003, and claims that defendant Harden refused him medical

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

care. Jackson Decl., Ex. 2 (grievance form). A Director’s Level decision was issued on January

20, 2004. Jackson Decl., Ex. 2 (Director’s Level decision); Grannis Decl. ¶ 7. In his

deposition, plaintiff acknowledges that defendant Abamonga’s alleged failure to treat him

occurred in connection with this incident. Hall Depo. at 104:21-105:18. 

In grievance 03-2053, plaintiff complains that defendant Rush came to his cell on

October 1, 2003 and asked him to see a psychologist; he characterizes this as harassment. 

Jackson Decl., Ex. 3 (grievance form). The Director’s Level decision on this grievance was

issued on April 2, 2004. Jackson Decl., Ex. 3 (Director’s Level); Grannis Decl. ¶ 8. In his

deposition, plaintiff identified Rush’s alleged tampering with plaintiff’s food as part of the

harassment. Hall Depo. at 95:13-20.

In grievance 03-2083, plaintiff notified correctional authorities about the

involvement of certain staff members, including Cook and Minnick, in racketeering and

prostitution, claims not raised in this action. Jackson Decl., Ex. 4 (grievance form). A Director’s

Level determination was issued on March 19, 2004. Jackson Decl., Ex. 4 (Director’s Level

decision); Grannis Decl. ¶ 9. 

B. Timing of Completion of Grievance Process for Those Accepted

Based on the above, as to defendants Fleming, Iannone, McCoy, Harden,

Abamonga and Rush, plaintiff failed to complete the grievance process before he initiated this

suit on July 30, 2003. See Jackson Decl., Exs. 2, 3. Therefore, the claims as to these defendants

should be dismissed. Moreover, the November 5, 2003 incident with defendant Hitchcock

occurred after plaintiff filed his initial complaint. Whenever plaintiff attempted to grieve this

incident, if he did, it would have been after the initial complaint was filed. Accordingly, the

claims as to defendant Hitchcock also are subject to dismissal. See Jackson v. District of

Columbia, 254 F.3d 262, 269 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

/////

///// 

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

C. Effect of Grievances Screened Out

Plaintiff’s claims against Alameida, Runnels, McDonald, Minnick, Norguard and

Cook are on a different footing. Plaintiff alleges these defendants designed and implemented a

discriminatory policy on or about July 8, 2003. As Appeals Coordinator Jackson acknowledged,

plaintiff submitted fifteen grievances between July 1, and December 31, 2003, all of which were

rejected or screened out. In his deposition, plaintiff suggests it was one of these “screened out”

grievances that concerned the alleged discriminatory policy. Jackson Decl. ¶ 3; Hall Depo. at 75-

77. Once the grievance had been rejected for a procedural reason, there was no remedy available

for plaintiff to exhaust. Ngo, 408 F.3d at 625. Because defendants have not rebutted the

suggestion that a grievance concerning the alleged discriminatory policy had been “screened

out,” thus rendering the grievance procedure unavailable, they have not borne their burden of

showing plaintiff’s failure to exhaust these claims. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The motion to dismiss as to defendants Alameida, Runnels, McDonald,

Minnick, Norguard and Cook be denied; and 

2. The motion to dismiss as to defendants Fleming, Iannone, McCoy, Harden,

Abamonga, Hitchcock and Rush be granted. 

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

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

shall be served and filed within five 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: August 23, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/hall1595.57

Case 2:03-cv-01595-RRB -KJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/05 Page 7 of 7