Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02133/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02133-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN FRANK, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2133 CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims which remain are for excessive force in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment against defendants Shinnette and Mohr (defendants). The claims arise out 

of events occurring March 17, 2015 at California State Prison, Sacramento. Defendants have 

filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure arguing 

plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his remaining claims prior to 

filing suit.

Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action shall be 

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). Administrative 

procedures generally are exhausted with respect to the California prisoner grievance process once 

the third level of review is complete. The third level of review constitutes the decision of the 

Case 2:15-cv-02133-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.7.

The exhaustion requirement demands “proper” exhaustion. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 

81, 90-91 (20016). In order to “properly exhaust” administrative remedies the prisoner must 

generally comply with the prison’s procedural rules throughout the administrative process. Jones 

v. Bock, 218 U.S. 199, 218 (2006). 

Dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies is appropriate only if it is clear on the face of a complaint that 

administrative remedies have not been exhausted. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 

2014). Material properly attached to a complaint is generally considered part of the complaint 

when considering whether the court should dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). See Hal 

Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1989).1

Attached to his complaint is a copy of the grievance plaintiff submitted concerning the 

alleged use of excessive force by defendants at issue in this case. ECF No. 1 at 33-36. Plaintiff 

ultimately submitted his grievance to the third level of review, but the grievance was rejected on 

August 26, 2015 because plaintiff failed to submit a medical report he references in his grievance 

as required by CDCR regulations. Id. at 8, 34. Plaintiff was given instructions as to how he 

could obtain the required document if he did not possess it and told he could resubmit his 

grievance once he did so. Id. at 8. There is nothing in plaintiff’s pleadings indicating he ever 

resubmitted his grievance to the third level and therefore he never “properly” exhausted 

administrative remedies.

 

1

 Exhibits attached to defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiff’s opposition are not proper for 

consideration, except to the extent the exhibits are also attached to plaintiff’s complaint. Also, 

defendants ask that the court take judicial notice “of the fact that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies before filing suit relative to Appeal Log No. SAC-15-1546.” ECF No. 

16. This is the ultimate issue to be decided with respect to defendants’ motion to dismiss and the 

court will rule on that issue within the confines of the motion to dismiss. Defendants’ request for 

judicial notice is denied as the fact that they request be noticed is not “generally” known within 

the jurisdiction of this court (e.g. the Sacramento River separates Sacramento from West 

Sacramento), nor can it be readily be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably 

be questioned (e.g. the court’s docket). See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

Case 2:15-cv-02133-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 4
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

In his opposition, plaintiff argues he was not required to proceed to the third level because

his grievance was “partially granted” at the second level. However, the appeal was granted only 

to the extent plaintiff requested an inquiry into the actions of defendants. The appeal was denied 

with respect to plaintiff’s request that “they be held accountable for their actions.” Id. at 9. 

Plaintiff was specifically informed at the second level that it was the decision of the reviewer that 

defendants did not violate CDCR policy, and that plaintiff could appeal that decision to the third 

level. Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff was also specifically informed that administrative remedies would 

not be deemed “exhausted” until a decision had been rendered at the third level. Id. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is clear from plaintiff’s complaint, and documents 

attached thereto, that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his 

remaining claims prior to filing suit. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss should be 

granted, and this case should be closed. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 

assign a district court judge to this case.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) be granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies; and

3. This case be closed.

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 fourteen 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 response to the 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:15-cv-02133-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 4
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

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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: July 15, 2016

1

warr2133.exh

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02133-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 4