Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01124/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01124-17/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’s claims against defendants Flores, Spearman, and Fogleman stemming from the incident in

1

which plaintiff was forced to carry his personal property and injured himself were dismissed for failure to state any

claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; plaintiff’s claims against defendants Shelby, Petrick,

and Havens stemming from the incident in which he burned his finger on a coffee pot and was denied medical

treatment were dismissed for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;

plaintiff’s retaliation claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983; plaintiff’s conspiracy claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under

section 1983; plaintiff’s state law negligence claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted; plaintiff’s claims against defendant Lewis, Bendon, Sacs, and Day were dismissed for failure to state any

claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; and defendants Lewis, Bendon, Sacs, Flores, Day,

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOYLE WAYNE DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAIL LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01124-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 50)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Doyle Wayne Davis (“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 August 18, 2005, against defendant Melendez on plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim stemming from the incident in which plaintiff was forced to carry his personal

property, causing injury; and against defendants Kushner, Ortiz, Hernon, Havens, Fogleman, Shelby,

Torres, and Ornellas on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim stemming from the failure to ensure

that he was provided with the medically necessary items. On April 27, 2007, defendants Melendez, 1

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 10/12/07 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

Petrick, and Spearman were dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which

relief may be granted against them. (Doc. 21.)

 Defendant Fogelman could not be located for service of process. (Doc. 59.) 2

 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 3

on October 10, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 27.)

2

Kushner, Ortiz, Hernon, Havens, Shelby, Torres, and Ornellas (“defendants”) filed a motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. (Doc. 50.) Plaintiff was 2

granted a sixty-day extension of time to file a response to the motion on June 6, 2007, and was

granted an additional thirty days on July 30, 2007. (Docs. 53, 57.) More than thirty days have 3

passed and plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion.

II. Legal Standard

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

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 10/12/07 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

concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

III. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Melendez arises from an incident on May 19, 2003, in

which defendant Melendez forced him to carry approximately four-hundred pounds of personal

property despite being notified that plaintiff had a serious medical condition precluding him from

doing so, resulting in back and legs injuries. Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Kushner, Ortiz,

Hernon, Havens, Fogleman, Shelby, Torres, and Ornellas arises from their failure to ensure that he

was provided with medically necessary cotton blankets and soft soled boots. 

Defendants argue that plaintiff is precluded from relitigating whether exhaustion occurred

prior to September 25, 2003, because that issue was decided in an earlier case. “The doctrine of

collateral estoppel (or issue preclusion) ‘prevents the relitigation of issues actually litigated and

necessarily decided, after a full and fair opportunity for litigation, in a prior proceeding.’” Kourtis

v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 994 (9th 2005) (quoting Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir.

1995)). “A federal court decision has preclusive effect where (1) the issue necessarily decided at the

previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the first proceeding

ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is

asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first proceeding.” Id. (citing Hydranautics v.

FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2000)).

On September 25, 2003, plaintiff filed case number 1:03-cv-06321-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

Davis v. Lewis, et al. On March 9, 2005, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and the case

was dismissed for failure to exhaust in compliance with section 1997e(a). (Doc. 50, Ex. C.) In

relevant part, plaintiff asserted an Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Melendez for forcing

him to carry his personal property for a half mile, injuring plaintiff’s back. Plaintiff also asserted

an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Lewis, Spearman, Petrick, Fogelman, Shelby,

Torres, Ornellas, and Melendez for denying him soft sole shoes, an extra mattress, two cotton

blankets, and a lower bunk, all of which were medically necessary. (Doc. 50, Exs. B, C.) In granting

defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court found that no evidence that plaintiff ever raised his claim

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 10/12/07 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

 Plaintiff is not required to specifically assert an Eighth Amendment violation or name all the defendants in 4

the appeal. However, the appeal must be sufficient to place prison officials on notice as to the staff misconduct later

giving rise to suit for violation of plaintiff’s rights.

4

against defendant Melendez for forcing him to carry his property at any level of the inmate appeals

process, and that plaintiff did not exhaust his claim for denial of soft soled shoes, two mattresses,

cotton blankets, and a lower bunk chrono. (Id.) Approximately five months later, on August 18,

2005, plaintiff filed this case, again raising those same claims. 

The Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff is precluded from relitigating the issue of

whether his claims were exhausted prior to the filing of his first suit. However, the action was

dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that plaintiff may have subsequently

exhausted his claims.

Defendants contend that plaintiff did not exhaust his claims between September 25, 2003,

when he filed his first suit, and August 18, 2005, when he filed this suit. Defendants submit as

evidence all of plaintiff’s appeals that were submitted or processed between those dates, and contend

that only two mention the claims in this action. As to the two that mention plaintiff’s claims,

defendants contend that neither demonstrates exhaustion.

Inmate appeal number PVSP-D-03-01617 was partially granted at the first formal level of

review in August of 2005. (Doc. 50, Ex. F, pgs. 6-10.) In the appeal, plaintiff sought the renewal

of his chronos. The appeal was partially granted in that the chronos would be re-written for renewal

except for the cotton blanket chrono, which required that plaintiff take a wool allergy test. The

appeal does not constitute a grievance placing prison officials on notice that defendants were

violating plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide him with medically

necessary soft soled shoes and cotton blankets.4

Plaintiff also submitted an Americans with Disabilities Act reasonable accommodation

request on November 18, 2003. (Doc. 50, Ex. F, pg. 4.) The Court agrees with defendants and the

court’s earlier decision in plaintiff’s previous case that a reasonable accommodation request does

not satisfy section 1997e(a), at least in thisinstance. Plaintiff is asserting a claim for violation of his

rights under the Eighth Amendment based on staff misconduct. The reasonable accommodation

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 10/12/07 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

request is simply a request that plaintiff’s chronos for soft soled shoes and cotton blankets be

renewed. The request does not grieve the failure of defendants to provide him with these medically

necessary items.

IV. Conclusion and Order

The Court finds defendants have met their burden as the parties moving for dismissal.

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, and based on a review of the record, the Court finds that

plaintiff’s claims have not been exhausted. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed April

27, 2007, is HEREBY GRANTED and this action is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to

exhaust. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 10/12/07 Page 5 of 5