Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02225/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02225-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Eleazar Villegas,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-2225 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

L. Robinson, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action against prison officials. 

The action proceeds on the May 7, 2003, amended complaint

against defendants Robinson, Tice, Varcoe, Wicks, Knowles,

Driggers, Brown, Grannis and McDonald. 

Presently before the court is defendants’ October 19, 2004,

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations.

Plaintiff alleges he filed a class action in state court 

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 9
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

challenging the constitutional adequacy of law library services

at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) and claiming officers Tice,

Robinson, Varcoe, Wicks and Knowles conspired with inmate law

clerks to obstruct inmate litigation against the California

Department of Corrections. Plaintiff filed a second class action

in state court claiming Knowles, Robinson and Tice discriminated

against Spanish-speaking inmates by failing to hire Spanishspeaking inmate law clerks. Defendant Brown considered

plaintiff’s administrative appeals regarding allegations

underlying the state court actions and told plaintiff the

institution would not protect him or investigate complaints of

reprisal. Amended Complaint (AC) paras. 13-15. 

December 27, 2000, Robinson allegedly confiscated documents

attached to a pleading plaintiff was preparing to file in one of

the state court actions. AC para. 16.

Knowles, Robinson, Varcoe, Wicks and Tice, along with inmate

law clerks, launched a campaign of harassment and retaliation for

plaintiff’s litigation efforts. This included confiscating and

refusing to photocopy plaintiff’s documents, improperly

disseminating documents to inmates and guards, denying access to

the law library and legal materials, and threatening to file

false rule violation reports and have plaintiff transferred to

another institution. AC paras. 17-19.

Robinson, Tice, Varcoe, Wicks and law library clerks

threatened that if plaintiff continued his civil rights

litigation they would falsify a rules violation report and have

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 9
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

him transferred to another institution. AC para. 20.

After a confrontation between plaintiff and inmate law

clerks, false disciplinary charges were filed against plaintiff. 

Plaintiff informed Brown that law library staff was retaliating

against plaintiff because of his civil rights litigation. 

Defendants filed numerous false rule violation reports against

plaintiff, one of which (regarding an alleged plot to assault

Wicks) led to plaintiff’s placement in the Administrative

Segregation Unit (ASU). AC paras. 21-25. 

Brown refused to investigate or protect plaintiff from

retaliation. Grannis refused to interview plaintiff when

processing plaintiff’s appeal at the third level. Driggers and

Brown, who considered plaintiff’s appeal at lower levels, told

plaintiff he would be transferred from the institution before his

grievance was fully exhausted. AC paras. 26-28.

While plaintiff was in segregation, defendant McDonald told

plaintiff he was on McDonald’s “shit list” based on plaintiff’s

conflict with Robinson, Varcoe, Tice and Wicks. McDonald

harassed plaintiff by filing false rule violation reports and

obstructing plaintiff’s law library access while plaintiff was in

ASU. As plaintiff’s grievance and litigation efforts continued,

McDonald became increasingly agitated and struck plaintiff with a

broom handle. McDonald refused to make copies of documents for

filing in this action and fabricated a rule violation report tht 

plaintiff threatened McDonald. Documents plaintiff gave McDonald

for copying disappeared. AC paras. 30-36. 

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 9
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

4

February 4, 2003, plaintiff was transferred to another

prison affording fewer privileges and entailing loss of his

typewriter in retaliation for his grievance and litigation

efforts against defendants. AC para. 37.

Discussion.

Section 1997a(e) of Title 42 of the United States Code

provides that a prisoner may bring no section 1983 action until

he has exhausted such administrative remedies as are available. 

The requirement is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

741 (2001). The administrative remedy must be exhausted before

suit is brought and a prisoner is not entitled to a stay of

judicial proceedings in order to exhaust. McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002). A prisoner need not plead exhaustion. 

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). Ordinarily,

defendants must raise and prove absence of exhaustion as a

defense raised by a motion to dismiss. Id. “Courts considering

‘nonenumerated’ Rule 12(b) motions on the issue of administrative

exhaustion may not only rely on matters outside the pleadings but

also have broad discretion to resolve any factual disputes.” 

Irvin v. Zamora, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1128 (S.D. Cal. 2001),

citing Ritza v. Internat’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union,

837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988).

The California Department of Corrections’ administrative

grievance procedure is set forth in Title 15 of the California

Administrative Code at sections 3084.1, et seq. California

prisoners or parolees may appeal “any departmental decision,

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 4 of 9
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

action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having

an adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 CAC § 3084.1(a). The

regulatory system does not dictate the content of the grievance

but it requires the use of specified forms. 15 CAC §§ 3084.2 and

3085 (designating use of CDC Form 602 Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form

for all grievances except those related to disabilities under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, which are filed on CDC Form

1824, Reasonable Modification or Accommodation Request). The

first level of formal appeal must be decided within 30 working

days by someone not involved in the dispute or grievance, who is

at least equal in rank to the highest ranking person that was

involved. 15 CAC § 3084.5(e). Ordinarily, a grievance must be

taken to a second- and third-level appeal before exhaustion is

complete. Id. 

Few courts have addressed the specificity required for

claims raised in the prison administrative grievance process to

satisfy section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirements. Irvin v.

Zamora, 161 F. Supp. 2d at 1129.

When the administrative rulebook is silent, a grievance

suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the

wrong for which redress is sought. As in a noticepleading system, the grievant need not lay out the

facts, articulate legal theories, or demand particular

relief. All the grievance need do is object

intelligibly to some asserted shortcoming.

Strong v. Davis, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002); see also

Gomez v. Winslow, 177 S. Supp. 2d 977, 982 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

(purpose of exhaustion is to provide prison officials notice of

complaints so they can take proper action). In assessing

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 5 of 9
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 Section 1915(a)(1) requires plaintiff seek an order authorizing

“commencement” of a suit in forma pauperis. This action did not “commence”

until the court granted plaintiff authority to proceed in forma pauperis; the

complaint is deemed to have been filed with the court on that date. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint.”) Section

1997a(e) prohibits “bringing” an action before administrative remedies are

exhausted. “Bringing” and “commencing” suit are the same thing. Black’s Law

Dictionary, Rev’d. 4th ed. (1968) p. 335 (“To ‘bring’ a suit is an equivalent

term; an action is ‘commenced’ when it is ‘brought’ and vice versa.”)

6

exhaustion, a court should consider whether a reasonable

investigation of the administrative claim would have uncovered

the allegations of the civil rights complaint. Gomez v. Winslow,

177 F. Supp. 2d at 983; Irvin, 161 F. Supp. 2d at 1134-35; Sulton

v. Wright, 265 F. Supp. 2d 292, 298 (S.D. N.Y. 2003), abrogated

on other grounds as noted in Scott v. Gardner, 287 F. Supp. 2d

477 (S.D. N.Y. 2003); Torrence v. Pelkey, 164 F. Supp. 2d 264,

278-79 (D. Conn. 2001); see also Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620,

630 (9th Cir. 2005) (PLRA exhaustion requirement resembles

administrative exhaustion). 

The court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis March 19, 2003, and deems the action to have

commenced that date.1 The court file indicates plaintiff filed

six grievances that were by then exhausted to the third level:

02-620, 02-00012, 02-02422, 02-1827, 00-2531 and 02-2422. Of

these, 02-00012 (re futility of the appeals process at Mule

Creek), 01-02422 (re race discrimination in hiring in the

library), 00-2531 (group appeal re fundamental inadequacy of law

library materials and procedures) and 02-2422 (claiming

inadequate procedures and facilities were impacting plaintiff’s

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 6 of 9
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

seven legal actions and compromising his right of access to the

courts) are immaterial to this action and did not place prison

officials on notice of plaintiff’s claims herein.

Grievance 02-620 claimed Robinson and Tice were retaliating

against plaintiff because of, and obstructing plaintiff’s

litigation of, his state court actions. The grievance did not,

however, claim these officers were engaged in a conspiracy

including others. Plaintiff claimed Robinson was intentionally

misconstruing library regulations to confiscate plaintiff’s

documents and copies, had written two false rules violation

reports based on the regulations, and was opposed to hiring

Spanish-speaking law clerks (which plaintiff was suing to force

him to do). Considering all documents plaintiff presented at any

level in pursuing these grievances, the court finds they were

adequate to exhaust claims against defendants Robinson and Tice

as alleged in paragraphs 16-20 of the complaint. There is

nothing to support a conclusion that a reasonable investigation

of these grievances would have revealed plaintiff’s claims

against anyone but Robinson and Tice.

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant McDonald at

paragraphs 30-36 were fairly presented in grievance 03-00029, but

this grievance was not fully exhausted until July 22, 2003. 

Plaintiff’s claims set forth in paragraphs 30-36 are unexhausted.

Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraphs 21-25 against

defendants Knowles, Robinson, Wicks and Varcoe were fairly

presented in grievance 02-02504, but that grievance was never

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 7 of 9
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

8

taken to the third level. It was “partially granted” at the

first and second levels, in that plaintiff’s allegations of a

retaliatory scheme to transfer him were investigated and no staff

misconduct was found. In some instances, an inmate who prevails

on a grievance is not required to pursue it further to satisfy

exhaustion where he already has received all relief available. 

See Gomez, 177 F. Supp. 2d at 985; Clement v. California

Department of Corrections, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1106 (N.D. Cal.

2002); Brady v. Attygala, 196 F. Supp. 2d 1016-23 (C.D. Cal.

2002). Here, however, the “partial grant” did not afford

plaintiff the relief he requested, viz., release from

segregation, return to the A yard, and a reversal of a decision

to transfer him to another institution. Even though further

relief was available to plaintiff, he abandoned the grievance

rather than taking it to the next level. Plaintiff’s claims set

forth in paragraphs 21-28 and 37 are not exhausted. The claims

set forth in paragraphs 26-28 against Driggers, Brown and Grannis

were not fairly presented in any grievance. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that:

1. The October 19, 2004, motion to dismiss be granted in

part.

2. All claims against defendants Wicks, Varcoe, Knowles,

Grannis, Driggers, Brown and McDonald be dismissed without

prejudice as unexhausted.

3. All claims against Robinson and Tice, except those

alleged in alleged in paragraphs 16-20 of the amended complaint,

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 8 of 9
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

9

be dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted. 

4. Defendants Robinson and Tice be required to respond to

the amended complaint, which the court construes as alleging

claims defendants violated plaintiff’s right of access to the

courts and retaliated against him for the exercise of First

Amendment rights, within 30 days.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, either party may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: July 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02225-FCD-EFB Document 46 Filed 07/13/05 Page 9 of 9