Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03763/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03763-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY TILLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAMARUE; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-3763 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS, SETTING STATUS

CONFERENCE AND RESERVING DATE

FOR HEARING

Defendants moved to dismiss this prisoner civil rights action on the ground that plaintiff had not

exhausted his administrative remedies before filing it, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff opposed

the motion and presented evidence that he had unsuccessfully tried to file an inmate appeal. Defendants did

not file a reply brief to contest plaintiff's evidence ofhis attempt to exhaust. The evidence from plaintiff shows

that he filed an inmate appeal that was assigned appeal log SVSP # 03-3058, the appeal was stamped

"BYPASS"atthe informaland first formallevel, and the appealapparently was not processed further by prison

officials even though it was submitted in September 2003. In short, plaintiff attempted to exhaust but prison

officials failed to respond by the time plaintiff filed this action eleven months later or by the time plaintiff filed

his opposition to the motion to dismiss eighteen months later. The applicable regulationrequires in generalthat

prison officials respond to the inmate appeal within 30 working days for the first level appeal and within 20

working days for the second level appeal. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.6(b). After more than eighteen

months, it can reasonably be determined from the complete failure to respond that no response to plaintiff's

inmate appealSVSP #04-3058 will be made and that plaintiff's administrative appealhas gone as far as it ever

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 28 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

will go. Plaintiff availed himself ofthe administrative remedies process the state made available to him; that is

all § 1997e(a) required of him. Cf. Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005) (prisoner whose

administrative appeal was denied as untimely had "exhausted all administrative remedies available to him as

required by the PLRA when he completed all avenues of administrative review available to him"). For the

foregoing reasons, respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is DENIED.

(Docket # 17.) To rule otherwise would allow prison officials to bar inmates' access to federal court by simply

not responding to inmate appeals.

 Counselhas recently substituted in to represent plaintiff. Plaintiff's new counsel has requested a special

status conference primarily to obtain permission to expand the record on the motion to dismiss. No status

conference is necessary for this purpose because the court has now denied the motion to dismiss and needs

no further evidentiary presentation on it. 

The other reason plaintiff's counsel wants a special status conference is to discuss the possibility of

amending the complaint. If plaintiff wants to file an amended complaint, he should do so by filing a motion in

compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will reserve Friday, August 12, 2005

at 9:00 a.m. for such a hearing. Any such motion must be filed no later than July 8, 2005.

Inaddition, the Court willschedule a status conference for August 12, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. The

parties are directed to file a joint Case Management Conference statement one week in advance of the

conference, in accordance with this Court’s local rules and standing orders. Accordingly, plaintiff's ex parte

request for a special status conference is GRANTED. (Docket # 23.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2005 _s/Susan Illston_________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 28 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 2