Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01225-20/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

EARNEST C. WOODS, II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs. 

TOM L. CAREY, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants in this action are Warden Carey and Administrative Appeals

Coordinator Cervantes. This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed October 28,

2004. Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate dental care.

Pending before the court is defendants’ December 13, 2006, motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). For the following

reasons, the court recommends that defendants’ motion be denied in part and granted in part.

II. Legal Standard for Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 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

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 131 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 8
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

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

are exhausted.” In order for California prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies, they 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. Barry v.

Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A

final decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Id. at

1237-38.

In Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001) the Supreme Court held that inmates

must exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures. 121 S. Ct. at 1825. Therefore, inmates seeking money damages must completely

exhaust their administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In Woodford v. Ngo, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 2378 (2006), the Supreme Court

held that a prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise

procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal. 

III. Analysis

In the pending motion, defendants argue that plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies because the two administrative appeals he filed regarding the claims

raised in this action were denied based on his failure to follow the proper grievance procedures. 

Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance on November 27, 2003, concerning prison officials’

failure to repair his broken dentures. Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance on December 3,

2003, alleging that prison officials failed to repair his broken tooth.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 131 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 8
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

November 27, 2003, Grievance

In the November 27, 2003, grievance, plaintiff stated that on October 24, 2002, he

submitted an application to see the dentist based on his partial being broken and had still not seen

a dentist. Amended Complaint, Exhibit C. The informal response by E. Gonnelle dated

December 1, 2003, stated that on October 30, 2002, plaintiff was seen for an extraction and his

name was removed from the list of inmates waiting to see the dentist. Id. The response stated

that if plaintiff wanted to see a dentist he would have to submit another 7302 form to have his

name re-entered on the list. Id.

In his December 4, 2003, appeal from the informal level appeal, plaintiff stated

that on October 24, 2002, he submitted a 7302 form for the repair of his broken partial which he

could not wear anymore. Id. Plaintiff stated that he was seen for the extraction on October 30,

2002, on an emergency basis and not based on a request contained in a 7302 form. Id.

On December 4, 2003, defendant Cervantes returned the appeal to plaintiff

because he had not attempted to resolve the problem at the informal level with the medical

appeals analyst in accordance with Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.(c)(3). Defendants’ December

16, 2005, motion for summary judgment, Cervantes declaration, exhibit 2. The response goes on

to state, “Forward 602 directly to medical appeals analyst for informal level review by dental

staff.” Id.

In the verified amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he then submitted his

appeal to the medical appeals analyst, but on February 19, 2004, received a Medical Screening

Form stating that the informal response was already completed:

Informal Response already completed. First Level Appeal requests must be

processed through the Inmate Appeals Office (not Medical Appeal Office)

initially for assignment of a log number. After the Inmate Appeals Office assigns

a log number, they will then forward you appeal back to our office for processing.

Amended Complaint, Exhibit F. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 131 Filed 08/03/07 Page 3 of 8
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

In the motion to dismiss, defendants argue that defendant Cervantes actually

denied the administrative appeal discussed above on grounds that it was untimely. Citing Ngo,

supra, defendants argue that this appeal did not exhaust administrative remedies because it was

denied based on plaintiff’s failure to follow the proper procedures. In support of this argument,

defendants cite defendant Cervantes’ declaration which states, 

8. I determined that too great a time lapsed per CCR 3084.3(c)(6), which states

that an appeal can be rejected if the time limits for submitting the appeal are

exceeded and the appellant had the opportunity to file within the prescribed time

constraints. Even though plaintiff did not attach the corresponding CDC-695

form to his complaint, at the bottom left hand corner of Exhibit I is date [sic] I

received his appeal (12-15-03), my initials and the number 6. The number 6

corresponds to the CDC-695 form which states, “There has been too great of time

lapse per CCR 3084.3(c)(6).”

Defendants’ December 16, 2005, motion for summary judgment, Cervantes declaration, exhibit

2. 

While defendant Cervantes may have written the number 6 with his initials on

plaintiff’s appeal form, he did not deny actually plaintiff’s appeal as untimely. He did not mark

the line next to the number 6 on his appeal response, which would have indicated that the appeal

was untimely. Amended Complaint, Exhibit E. As discussed above, he instead rejected the

appeal because plaintiff did not attempt to resolve the problem at the informal level by

submitting it to the medical appeals analyst. 

With regard to the rejection of the appeal based on plaintiff’s failure to resolve the

problem at the informal level, plaintiff’s appeal form indicates that he did follow the appeal

procedures. As discussed above, plaintiff followed the directions given to him by defendant

Cervantes and submitted his appeal to the medical appeals analyst. The medical appeals analyst,

in turn, rejected the appeal because the appeal had to first be processed through the appeals office

for assignment of a log number. Plaintiff had, in fact, already submitted his appeal to the appeals

office. In his attempt to exhaust his claim regarding his broken partials, plaintiff got what could

be described as “the runaround.” 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 131 Filed 08/03/07 Page 4 of 8
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

Prison officials, not plaintiff, failed to follow the proper procedures regarding the

processing of the appeal discussed above. Either defendant Cervantes or the medical appeals

analyst rejected the appeal on improper grounds. Under these circumstances, this appeal was

properly exhausted. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998) (when time

limit for prison’s response has expired, the remedies are exhausted); Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d

523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003) (a remedy prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an

available remedy). 

December 3, 2003, Grievance

The grievance filed December 3, 2003, stated that on December 2, 2003, plaintiff

broke his tooth. Amended Complaint, Exhibit D. Plaintiff requested that he be seen

immediately by the dental staff for repair of his tooth. Id. The informal response, dated

December 31, 2003, stated that there was no record of plaintiff formally requesting dental care by

way of a 7302 form. Id. The response advised plaintiff to submit a 7302 form but that if he had

a dental emergency, he should have a Correctional Officer call the dental clinic for an

appointment. Id.

Plaintiff’s signature on his appeal of the informal response is dated January 8,

2004. Id. On February 20, 2004, defendant Cervantes returned the appeal to plaintiff on grounds

that too much time had elapsed in that he had failed to file an appeal within fifteen working days

pursuant to Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.3(c)(6). Defendants’ December 16, 2005, motion for

summary judgment, Cervantes declaration, exhibit 2. The response concluded, 

Appeals officer received your 602 requesting formal level on 2-20-04. The

informal level review was completed on 12-31-03. Your appeal is rejected due to

untimely filing. Please start is [sic] new. Cont. 602 if you are still being denied

dental care.

Id.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 131 Filed 08/03/07 Page 5 of 8
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

The appeal response also stated that the screening action could not be appealed

unless plaintiff alleged that the reason the appeal was denied, i.e. untimeliness, was inaccurate. 

Id. Plaintiff apparently did not appeal from this decision. 

In his opposition and other pleadings, plaintiff does not explain the delay between

the time he signed his appeal and when it was received by the appeals officer, i.e. from January 8,

2004, to February 20, 2004. The inference to be drawn, without any explanation, is that plaintiff

submitted his appeal to the appeals office well after he actually signed it.

Pursuant to Ngo, the court finds that the claims raised in the December 3, 2003,

grievance are unexhausted because the appeal was rejected as untimely. Accordingly, the motion

to dismiss the claim regarding the broken tooth should be granted as this claim is not exhausted. 

IV. Defendants’ Motion to Strike

On December 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

On January 2, 2007, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition. On January 19, 2007,

plaintiff filed objections to defendants’ reply. Attached to the objections are four letters to

plaintiff from N. Grannis, Chief of Inmate Appeals for the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation. These letters all state that they are returning various documents to plaintiff

because he did not follow the proper procedures for exhausting administrative remedies.

On January 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s January 19,

2007, objections. Attached to defendants’ motion is the declaration of N. Grannis. In this

declaration, N. Grannis states that the four appeals addressed in the correspondences attached to

plaintiff’s objections concerned custody/classification and disciplinary issues and not dental care

or staff complaints. 

On February 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a 45 page objection to defendants’ motion to

strike. On February 20, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice. On February 26, 2007,

defendants filed objections to plaintiff’s request for judicial notice. On March 9, 2007, plaintiff

filed objections to defendants’ objections.

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 131 Filed 08/03/07 Page 6 of 8
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

Plaintiff’s pleadings filed after his original December 26, 2006, opposition to

defendants’ motion to dismiss are improper. See Local Rule 78-230(m) (there shall be a motion,

opposition and reply). Plaintiff is not permitted to continuously file briefing in support of his

opposition. In any event, the court has reviewed plaintiff’s pleadings and find that they do not

demonstrate exhaustion of his claim concerning his broken tooth. For the reasons discussed

above, defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s plaintiff’s January 19, 2007, opposition is granted. 

Plaintiff’s additional pleadings are disregarded because they were filed in violation of Local Rule

230(m).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ January 26, 2007, motion to strike is granted; plaintiff’s January

19, 2007, objections are stricken;

2. Plaintiff’s objections filed February 5, 2007, and February 26, 2007, and his

request for judicial notice filed February 20, 2007, are disregarded;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ December 13, 2006, motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies be granted as to claim concerning the

broken tooth; defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as to plaintiff’s claim concerning

defendants’ failure to repair his dentures.

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 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 131 Filed 08/03/07 Page 7 of 8
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

shall be served and filed within ten 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: 8/3/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

woods.mtd

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 131 Filed 08/03/07 Page 8 of 8