Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00024-0/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

Marcelino Calderon Silva,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 01-0024 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Rosanne Campbell, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff claims defendant Acuna retaliated against him for

pursuing grievances and lawsuits by affirming a July 13, 2000,

order to place plaintiff in administrative segregation on drug

charges and that Campbell retaliated against him by retaining him

in administrative segregation on fabricated drug charges. 

Defendants move to dismiss upon the ground plaintiff failed to

exhaust available administrative remedies. 

On a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide

Case 2:01-cv-00024-LKK -EFB Document 39 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 6
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

disputed facts. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 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). Where a

litigant requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis, suit

commences when the request is granted. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1) (court may “authorize commencement” of suit without

prepayment of filing fee for person demonstrating inability to

pay). 

California prisoners may appeal “any departmental decision,

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

an adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 Cal. Admin. Code 

§ 3084.1(a). The regulations require the use of specific forms

upon which the prisoner must “describe the problem and action

requested,” but require no specific content. 15 Cal. Admin. Code

§§ 3084.2, 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). Prisoners ordinarily must present their allegations on

one informal and three formal levels of review. 15 Cal. Admin.

Code § 3084.5. While presentation on the third level, the

Case 2:01-cv-00024-LKK -EFB Document 39 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Director’s Level of Review, exhausts the remedy for departmental

purposes, 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3084.1(a), when prisoners cannot

present their allegations on any subsequent level, they have

exhausted available remedies for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a). Ngo v. Woodford, 2005 WL 674707 (9th Cir. (Cal.)). 

Defendant has the burden of identifying the remedies that remain

available. Ibid. The Ninth Circuit has explained that a

California prisoner who correctly completes an appeal form

provided by prison officials provides information adequate to

exhaust the administrative remedy for claims arising under the

Americans with Disabilities Act. Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181

(9th Cir. 2005) (error to dismiss complaint for failure to

identify defendants in administrative form because the form

provided by the prison did not require such identification).

Defendants contend plaintiff filed no grievances complaining

defendants retaliated against him by holding him in

administrative segregation. 

October 5, 2000, plaintiff filed a grievance alleging that

July 13, 2000, Vickery arbitrarily placed him in administrative

segregation and prison officials held him there on a charge of

drug possession with no evidence. He asserted, “The underlying

Appeal falls within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

to seek the government for redress of grievances; therefore, ‘no

reprisal shall be taken [sic] for filing an appeal.’” Plaintiff

requested the evidence be analyzed for fingerprints so he could

present evidence of his innocence at the disciplinary hearing and

Case 2:01-cv-00024-LKK -EFB Document 39 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 6
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

requested access to grievances and lawsuits filed against a

prison guard.

December 24, 2000, the appeal was denied on the first formal

level upon the ground it was institutional and departmental

policy not to conduct fingerprint analysis for disciplinary

procedures. Plaintiff was informed that if the District Attorney

decided to prosecute, plaintiff would have an attorney and the

opportunity to examine the evidence.

January 3, 2001, plaintiff appealed to the second level of

review, asserting he wanted to prove his innocence through

documentary evidence.

January 25, 2001, defendant Campbell denied the appeal upon

the ground plaintiff’s July 13, 2000, placement in administrative

segregation was justified by the results of field tests showing

the substance found in his cell was heroin or another opiate and

assured plaintiff the Institution Classification Committee was

monitoring his case. She informed plaintiff that for security

reasons he must remain in administrative segregation until the

disciplinary proceedings concluded. She denied plaintiff’s

request for fingerprint analysis. 

February 8, 2001, plaintiff appealed to the Director’s Level

of Review alleging that retaining him in administrative

segregation was motivated by a desire to retaliate against him

for filing grievances and lawsuits and the only way he could

prove this was through fingerprint analysis.

November 6, 2001, the appeal was denied on the Director’s

Case 2:01-cv-00024-LKK -EFB Document 39 Filed 06/03/05 Page 4 of 6
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

Level of Review upon the grounds plaintiff failed to support his

appeal with sufficient evidence, it was not CDC policy to obtain

fingerprint analysis for prison disciplinary proceedings and

plaintiff had no right to review personnel files. 

On the form provided by prison officials, plaintiff

described the problem and action requested at each level of

review. Defendants have not identified any remedy that remains

available to plaintiff.

Plaintiff has exhausted available administrative remedies. 

Plaintiff’s appeal was denied on the Director’s Level of

Review January 25, 2001, and this court granted plaintiff leave

to proceed in forma pauperis February 28, 2001. Accordingly,

plaintiff exhausted available remedies before commencing suit. 

For these reasons, defendants’ September 17, 2004, motion to

dismiss should be denied and defendants should be directed to

answer the complaint 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. Objections may be filed

within 20 days of the date these findings and recommendations are

served. 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: June 2, 2005. 

Case 2:01-cv-00024-LKK -EFB Document 39 Filed 06/03/05 Page 5 of 6
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

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:01-cv-00024-LKK -EFB Document 39 Filed 06/03/05 Page 6 of 6