Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00413/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00413-5/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 November 22, 2005. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJIE BROOKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. VOGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-0413-OWW-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS BE DENIED

(Doc. 30)

I. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 28,

2005, against defendants Vogel, Hayward, Olivas and Oliver (“defendants”) alleging retaliatory use

of excessive force during a cell extraction on June 9, 2004. On July 7, 2006, pursuant to the

unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants filed a motion to dismiss

based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed an

opposition to the motion on August 1, 2006. Defendants did not file a reply. 1

B. 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 1:05-cv-00413-DLB Document 40 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 5
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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the

prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.

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.

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. 

C. Discussion

Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 28, 2005 alleging retaliatory use of excessive force

during a cell extraction on June 9, 2004. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges he submitted a timely

inmate appeal on June 20, 2004; however, the appeals office informed him that this appeal was never

received. Plaintiff contends his subsequent attempts to submit an inmate appeal concerning the

events of June 9, 2004 were rejected as untimely. Defendants move to dismiss this action on the

ground that plaintiff did not exhaust the claim against him, as mandated by section 1997e(a).

Defendants rely on plaintiff’s admission in the complaint that his initial appeal was never received

and that his subsequent attempts to submit appeals were rejected as untimely. 

Plaintiff contends that exhaustion should be excused because defendants prevented him from

Case 1:05-cv-00413-DLB Document 40 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 5
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

completing the process. Plaintiff outlines his attempts to file his appeal in both his complaint and

his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. He states that on June 20, 2004, while confined to

his cell, he borrowed pen, paper and a 602 form from another inmate and then gave the appeal

Officer Valesco. Plaintiff’s Opposition, p. 5:19-28, Complaint, ¶ 29. Plaintiff states that he filed

handwritten copies of the June 20, 2004 grievance on June 24, 2004, July 7, 2004, July 13, 2004,

August 3, 2004, August 13, 2004 and on July 8, 2004 plaintiff hand delivered a copy of the grievance

to Sergeant Edwards. Opposition, p. 6:1-7; Complaint ¶ 31. Plaintiff contends each grievance was

lost by staff. On July 8, 2004, Officer Edwards informed plaintiff that the Appeals Office did not

have plaintiff’s appeals on file. Complaint, ¶ 31. Plaintiff states that he sent a request for an

interview to the Appeals Office on July 19, 2004 and the Appeals Office claimed it never received

his appeals. Opposition, p. 6: 14-19, Complaint, ¶ 33. On August 19, 2004, plaintiff sent a sealed

letter to the Warden enclosing a copy of the June 20, 2004 Appeal. Opposition, p. 7:16-22,

Complaint, ¶ 38. On August 25. 2004, the Appeals Coordinator’s Office rejected the appeal as

untimely. Opposition, p. 7:23-25, Complaint, ¶ 39. Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration with

the Appeals Coordinator’s Office explaining that his original grievance was filed on June 20, 2004.

Opposition, p. 7:25-28, Complaint, ¶39. On August 29, 2004, plaintiff sent a request for

reconsideration to the Director of Corrections which was screened out as untimely. Opposition, p.

8:17-19, Complaint, ¶ 41. On September 9, 2006, plaintiff sent a second letter requesting

reconsideration to the Appeals Coordinator’s Office, which was also denied. Opposition, p. 9: 1-21,

Complaint ¶¶ 45, 46. Plaintiff’s subsequent efforts to seek reconsideration of the timeliness issue

were also rejected. See Opposition, p.11-12, Complaint, ¶ ¶ 49, 54, 62, 65. 

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process isinitiated 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).

Case 1:05-cv-00413-DLB Document 40 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Under Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005), exhaustion occurred when an

inmate’s appeal was barred by the appeals coordinator on procedural grounds and “no further level

of appeal remained in the state prison’s internal appeals process.” However, on June 22, 2006, the

United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo and held that “proper

exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion requirement may not be

satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Woodford v. Ngo,

126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006) (emphasis added). “Proper exhaustion demands compliancewith an agency’s

deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” Id at 2386.

Although there are no Ninth Circuit Court cases on point, other Circuit Courts have

addressed the issue of the effect of prison officials’ failure to respond to grievances in a timely

manner, and held that exhaustion occurs when prison officials fail to respond to a grievance within

the policy time limits. 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). 

Here, defendants provide no evidence in support of their motion and rely entirely on the

allegations in plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants argue that based on plaintiff’s complaint, his appeals

were untimely and his claim should be dismissed pursuant to Woodford v. Ngo . Defendants argue

there are no exceptions to the statutory exhaustion requirement and therefore plaintiff’s proffered

excuse is irrelevant. The Court disagrees.

In Ngo, the Court briefly addressed the situation of prison administrators potentially devising

procedural requirements that are designed to trap unwary prisoners and thus defeat their claims.

Because no evidence was presented that anything like that occurred in the case before the Court, the

Case 1:05-cv-00413-DLB Document 40 Filed 11/28/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Supreme Court declined to address this situation, but implied such an exception to exhaustion may

exist. See Ngo, 126 S.Ct at 2392-93. In his concurrence, Justice Breyer also reasoned that the

PLRA’s proper exhaustion requirement is not absolute and certain facts may justify exceptions.

Ngo, 126 S.Ct at 2393.

Based on plaintiff’s allegations, he timely submitted an appeal that was apparently lost or

not processed by prison staff. Even after the appeal was rejected as untimely, plaintiff continued to

appeal the rejection. Defendants have presented no evidence in opposition to plaintiff’s assertion

that he was prevented from complying with the exhaustion requirement. Viewing the facts in the

light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party, defendants prevented plaintiff from

exhausting the administrative remedies and therefore the Court finds that this case presents the

situation referenced by the Ngo court where an exception to the exhaustion requirement should

apply. Because the burden of proving a violation of Section 1997e(a) rests with defendants and they

have failed to meet their burden, the court finds dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies pursuant to Section 1997e(a) is not warranted. 

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed July 7, 2006, be DENIED. 

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

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: November 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00413-DLB Document 40 Filed 11/28/06 Page 5 of 5