Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05538/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05538-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY DONNELL KING,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

P. NOLAND, J. MOORE, M.

KIRCHER, G. PONDER, T. SELBY,

J. CAPPRESSO, S. GOMEZ, A.

HEDGPETH, M. S. EVANS, T.

VARIZ, D. A. TRAVERS,

MORRISON, JR., SULLIVAN, S.

COLLINGS, J. CELAYA, E. JONES, 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-5538 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO EXHAUST

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff contends that

defendants retaliated against him for exercising his Fifth Amendment right not to “interview”

with prison officials who were investigating an assault on an inmate. They placed him on cell

restriction, which limits his outdoor exercise, the amount of personal property he is allowed in

his cell, and the visits he may receive. Plaintiff also contends that placing him on cell

restriction status without his having been found guilty of any rule violation was a violation of

his due process rights. Defendants have filed an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff has opposed the motion to dismiss and defendants

have filed a reply. For the reasons set out below, the motion is GRANTED. 

///

Case 3:06-cv-05538-WHA Document 15 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

Federal law 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." 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although once within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in

prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524

(2002). All available remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet federal

standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation omitted). 

 The PLRA's exhaustion requirement cannot be satisfied "by filing an untimely or

otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal." Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.

Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006). "The text of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) strongly suggests that the PLRA uses

the term 'exhausted' to mean what the term means in administrative law, where exhaustion

means proper exhaustion." Id. at 2387. Therefore, the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires

proper exhaustion. Id. "Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and

other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without

imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings." Id. at 2386. (footnote

omitted). Compliance with prison grievance procedures is all that is required by the PLRA to

"properly exhaust." Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 922-23 (2007). 

The State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal

administratively "any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those

individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). It also

provides its inmates the right to file administrative appeals alleging misconduct by correctional

officers. See id. § 3084.1(e). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this

system, a prisoner 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. See id. § 3084.5; Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D.

Cal. 1997). A final decision at the director’s level satisfied the exhaustion requirement under §

Case 3:06-cv-05538-WHA Document 15 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The request for a “legal figure” is on the back of the administrative appeal form,

and that second side is not included in the copy of the grievance which is exhibit C to the

defendants’ Viriz declaration. It is included in exhibit 2 attached to plaintiff’s declaration.

3

1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. 

Nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense. Wyatt v Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir 2003). It should be treated as a matter of abatement and brought in an

“unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than [in] a motion for summary judgment.” Id.

(citations omitted). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies under § 1997e(a), the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues

of fact. Id. at 1119-20. If the court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted California’s

prison administrative process, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id. at 1120.

Defendants’ evidence is sufficient to establish that plaintiff did not pursue an

administrative appeal (grievance) involving the events giving rise to this case to the third and

final formal level of the system, and plaintiff does not dispute that fact. Instead, he contends

that he was not required to reach the third level to have exhausted.

Plaintiff points to two grievances involving the issue of whether he could be punished

for refusing to interview. Copies are attached to the declaration of T. Variz as exhibits B and C.

In administrative appeal SVSP D 05-02614 plaintiff asked for an investigation and for him to be

allowed the same “program” as other black inmates (Decl. T. Variz, Exh. B). In administrative

appeal SVSP C 05-03965 plaintiff asked that the prison stop punishing inmates for not

interviewing and, in his appeal to the second level, that a “legal figure” be present at the

interviews (Decl. King, Exh. 2).1

 In the first of these, plaintiff withdrew the grievance when he

was allowed to program with the rest of the population (Decl. King at 1). In the second, the

grievance was “partially granted” and the institution agreed to stop punishing inmates for

refusing to interview (ibid.). Plaintiff’s position is that he had fully exhausted because his

grievances were granted.

The obligation to exhaust persists as long as some remedy is available; when that is no

longer the case, the prisoner need not further pursue the grievance. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d

926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). A prisoner need not exhaust further levels of review once he has

Case 3:06-cv-05538-WHA Document 15 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

either received all the remedies that are “available” at an intermediate level of review, or has

been reliably informed by an administrator that no more remedies are available. Id. at 935. In

this case plaintiff was not granted the investigation he requested in SVSP D 05-02614 and was

not granted the right to have a “legal figure” present as he requested in SVSP C 05-03965, so in

fact further remedies were available. That is, some of the relief he had requested in the

grievances was not granted and remained potentially available to plaintiff if he appealed further. 

As a result, his failure to take his claims to the highest level available constituted a failure to

exhaust. The motion will be granted. 

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss (document number 7 on the docket) is GRANTED. The case is

DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.06\KING538.DISMISS-EXH.wpd 

Case 3:06-cv-05538-WHA Document 15 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 4