Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01288/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01288-5/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

Defendant Wyman filed a joinder to the motion on April 10, 2007. 1

 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 2

on October 30, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01288-AWI-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

BE GRANTED

(Doc. 22)

OBJECTIONS DUE JULY 28, 2007

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendants’ 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

October 12, 2005, against defendants Sullivan, Wyan, Vo, Chapel and Culpepper for deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On January 5, 2007, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b), defendants Chappel, Sullivan, Vo, Culpepper and Wyman (“defendants”) filed 1

a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies

in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 24,

2007, defendants filed a reply on February 5, 2007. 2

B. Legal Standard

Case 1:05-cv-01288-LJO-DLB Document 36 Filed 06/28/07 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

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

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

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007);

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required

regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process,

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all

prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (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. Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921; 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

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative

grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2007). The process

is initiated 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). In order to satisfy section 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to

Case 1:05-cv-01288-LJO-DLB Document 36 Filed 06/28/07 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

use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378,

2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he filed an inmate appeal and completed the

grievance process. Defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal of this action because

plaintiff failed to pursue his appeal to the second or third and final level of review. In support of

their motion, defendants submit evidence that on June 17, 2004 while at California Correctional

Institution (“CCI”), plaintiff filed a CDC 602 Appeal, Log Number CCI-3-04-1876, regarding

lack of pain medication and medical treatment for his knee condition. Defendants contend that

after receiving a first level response on September 1, 2004, plaintiff did not request a second

level review, or a Director’s Level review. See Sampson Decl., ¶ ¶4-5; Grannis Decl., ¶ 9.

Defendants have met their burden as the parties moving for dismissal. The burden

therefore shifts to plaintiff. Plaintiff may not simply rely on allegations in the complaint, and

must instead, oppose the motion by setting forth specific facts in declaration(s) and other

evidence regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(e); Ritza,

837 F.2d at 369. 

In his opposition, plaintiff submits evidence that he submitted Log Number CCI-3-04-

1876 at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF) for second level review on

September 23, 2004. Plaintiff also submits evidence that on August 2, 2005, his documents were

returned from the Director’s level and he was advised that he needed to proceed through the

second level review prior to presenting the appeal to the Director’s level. 

In reply, defendants submit the declaration of R. Hall, the appeals coordinator at CSATF,

who explains that plaintiff was transferred to CSATF from CCI on September 1, 2004. Plaintiff

submitted the appeal to CSATF for second level review on September 24, 2004. R. Hall. Decl. ¶

2. On September 28, 2004, the appeal was screened out at the second level and plaintiff was

instructed to forward the appeal directly to CCI, since that was where the grievance originated. 

R. Hall. Decl. ¶ 3. Instead of doing so, plaintiff again filed the grievance at CSATF and it was

again screened out using the same screen out letter. R. Hall. Decl. ¶ 4. As discussed above,

there is no record of the appeal having been received at CCI for processing at the second level. 

Case 1:05-cv-01288-LJO-DLB Document 36 Filed 06/28/07 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

See Sampson Decl., ¶ ¶4-5. Plaintiff then forwarded the appeal to the Inmate Appeals Branch of

CDCR for Director’s level review. The appeal was screened out and the letter from IAB

instructs plaintiff to proceed through second level review prior to presenting the appeal to the

Director’s level. Exhibit F. 

As discussed, in order to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit and to satisfy section

1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use the process provided for in Title 15 §

3084.1, which involves four levels of appeal. See Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2383

(2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. Plaintiff admittedly did not do so. While he

ultimately submitted the appeal to the Director’s level for review, he did not follow the proper

procedure in doing so. Where an inmate’s appeal is rejected because he failed to follow the

applicable rules, the exhaustion requirement is not satisfied. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at 2382. 

Accordingly, defendants are entitled to dismissal of this action based on plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’ motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed January 5, 2007, be GRANTED. In the event this

recommendation is adopted by the District Court, the undersigned also recommends that the

exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims be declined and the state

law claims also be dismissed without prejudice. 

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). On or

before July 28, 2007, 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: June 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01288-LJO-DLB Document 36 Filed 06/28/07 Page 4 of 4