Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00070-15/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 July 11, 2007. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 28.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARVIE B. CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. GRICEWICH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

BE GRANTED

(Doc. 47)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Findings and Recommendations on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Arvie B. Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January

16, 2007, and it is proceeding against Defendants Pfieffer and Gricewich (“Defendants”) for

retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment. On October 30, 2007, Defendants filed a motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. (Doc. 47.) On November

26, 2007, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Doc. 49.) 1

II. 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

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 6
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

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating

to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (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.

Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921 (2007); 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. 

III. Discussion

On July 18, 2006, Plaintiff sent a written request to Defendant Pfieffer in which he referenced

two inmate appeals for which responses were due. (Doc. 1, Comp., ¶8.) Plaintiff alleges that in

retaliation for submitting that written request, Defendants agreed to block Plaintiff’s efforts to

exhaust his appeals, which would cause Plaintiff to be denied access to the courts. (Id., ¶14.) It is

these allegations which formthe basis of Plaintiff’s cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants.

Assuming Defendants meet their initial burden, a demonstration of exhaustion requires Plaintiff to

show that exhaustion occurred when he submitted an appeal claiming that Defendants were

retaliating against him and either completed the process through the available levels of review or

encountered a situation in which the process was rendered unavailable. E.g., Kaba v. Stepp, 458

F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Prison officials may not take unfair advantage of the exhaustion

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 6
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

requirement, [] and a remedy becomes ‘unavailable’ if prison employees do not respond to a properly

filed grievance or otherwise use affirmative misconduct to prevent a prisoner from exhausting.”

(quoting Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006))); Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663,

667 (2d 2004) (inability to utilize inmate appeals process due to prison officials’ conduct or the

failure of prison officials to timely advance appeal may justify failure to exhaust); Boyd v.

Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 2004) (administrative remedies are

exhausted when prison officials fail to timely respond to properly filed grievance); Jernigan v.

Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (the failure to respond to a grievance within the

policy time limits renders remedy unavailable); Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir.

2002) (when prison officials fail to respond, the remedy becomes unavailable, and exhaustion

occurs); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. 2001) (district court did not err when it

declined to dismiss claim for failure to exhaust where prison failed to respond to grievance); Powe

v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999) (when a valid grievance has been filed and the state’s

time for responding has expired, the remedies are deemed exhausted); Underwood v. Wilson, 151

F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998) (when time limit for prison’s response has expired, the remedies are

exhausted). 

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance

system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2008). The process is initiated

by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(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.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of the

event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level,

or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). In order to satisfy

section 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use the available process to exhaust their

claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney,

311 F.3d at 1199-1201. Exhaustion does not always require pursuit of an appeal through the

Director’s Level of review. What is required to satisfy exhaustion is a fact specific inquiry, and may

///

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 6
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

be dependent upon prison officials’ response to the appeal. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935-

36 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[E]ntirely pointless exhaustion” is not required.) 

As evidenced by the parties’ arguments, the exhaustion issue is somewhat susceptible to

confusion in this case because Defendants, as appeals coordinators, stand accused of hindering

Plaintiff’s ability to utilize the appeals process through unjustifiably screening out his appeals, etc.

However, appeals grieving issues other than the retaliation claim are not relevant to the question of

exhaustion. The appeals process does not require that inmates draft their appeals with the precision

of an attorney. Nonetheless, if an inmate is going to file suit on the basis of wrongdoing by a prison

official, that inmate must file an appeal which places officials on notice as to the basis of that

wrongdoing. The failure to do so deprives officials of any opportunity review and take action on the

alleged wrongdoing. Therefore, relevant to the exhaustion issue is an appeal, if any, grieving

Defendants’ retaliatory conduct. 

The parties’ focus on the appeal submitted by Plaintiff on July 24, 2006, and screened out

by Defendants is misplaced. That appeal concerned Plaintiff ’s claim that he filed an earlier appeal

regarding medical care issues but the appeal had not been responded to in compliance with the time

constraints set forth in the regulations. The appeal did not concern the claim that Defendants were

retaliating against Plaintiff by tampering with his appeals or hindering his ability to utilize the

process. While, the allegedly unjustified screening out of the appeal submitted on July 24, 2006, is

one of the adverse acts purportedly committed by Defendants in retaliation against Plaintiff, it is not

evidence that Plaintiff did or did not exhaust his retaliation claim raised in this action. 

The bulk of the parties’ arguments relate to the aforementioned irrelevant appeal. However,

Defendants also submitted evidence that Plaintiff filed an appeal claiming that Defendant Gricewich

was retaliating against him. (Doc. 47, Motion, Ex. D.) That appeal received a Director’s Level

decision in April of 2007, after Plaintiff filed this suit. Id. Defendants argue that to the extent

Plaintiff relies on that appeal to demonstrate exhaustion, exhaustion did not occur priorto filing suit.

In his opposition, Plaintiff chooses to focus on the appeal submitted on July 24, 2006, rather

than the later filed appeal against Defendant Gricewich for retaliation, arguing that Defendants are

attempting to obscure the facts through misrepresentation and misdirection. (Doc. 49, 8:14-19.)

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 05/06/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

As previously set forth, the appeal focused upon by Plaintiff is relevant to the merits of

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because it is Defendants’ actions with regard to that appeal that were

allegedly retaliatory. However, the appeal is not relevant to the issue of exhaustion because the

subject matter of the appeal was not a claim that Defendants were retaliating against Plaintiff

because of the written request he filed on July 18, 2006. Plaintiff’s general argument that the process

was rendered unavailable due to Defendants’ retaliatory actions is not sufficient. (Doc. 49, 15:14-

19.) “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 (quoting Booth,

532 U.S. at 739 n.5). Therefore, futility may not excuse compliance, and a bald assertion of

unavailability is not sufficient. In order to advance a valid argument that exhaustion occurred

because the process wasrendered unavailable, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he attempted to utilize

the process by appealing the claim at issue in his suit and was thwarted through no fault of his own.

Pointing to other instances in which an appeal was allegedly thwarted is not sufficient. 

Defendants have met their burden by showing that an appeal Plaintiff filed concerning the

retaliatory conduct of Defendant Gricewich was not exhausted prior to filing suit. Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that he did exhaust the retaliation claim at issue in this action prior to filing suit, and

Defendants are therefore entitled to dismissal of this action, without prejudice. Jones, 127 S.Ct. at

918-19; McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed

October 30, 2007, be GRANTED and this action be dismissed, without prejudice.

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 thirty (30)

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

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 05/06/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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: May 5, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 05/06/08 Page 6 of 6