Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01057/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01057-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESHA CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. BUTLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01057-LJO-DLB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED 

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

(Doc. 24)

I. Order

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff, Desha Carter, (“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 based on

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed June 23, 2006, and is proceeding against defendants Butler,

Gonzales, Hayward, Botello, Fuhlrodt, and Rousseau (“defendants”) for excessive force,

retaliation, and violation of due process. On August 3, 2007, defendants filed a motion to

dismiss for: (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies (as to the claims against Gonzales,

Hayward, and Botello for denial of two meals; approval of an allegedly false RVR by Fuhlrodt;

and Rousseau’s failure to hold a proper disciplinary hearing); and (2) for failure to state a claim

against Fuhlrodt. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The parties filed documents in opposition and reply. 

The motion has been deemed submitted. Local Rule 78-230(m).

B. Legal Standard

“The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v. California

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 28 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 7
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

Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in

the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's

favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). The federal

system is one of notice pleading. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126

(2002). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.

Civ. Pro. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under

any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. Discovery and

summary judgment motions - not motions to dismiss - “define disputed facts” and “dispose of

unmeritorious claims.” Id. at 512. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail

but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear

on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’”

Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,

236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin,

262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not

be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)

(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 

C. Discussion

The events at issue in plaintiff’s amended complaint occurred at Corcoran State Prison. 

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 28 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiff alleges that on January 13, 2004, Butler sprayed him with pepper spray, without

provocation, for approximately one minute; and that Butler then filed a false rules violation

report against him. Plaintiff claims that Furlrodt approved the false report. 

Plaintiff alleges that, on January 14, 2004, Gonzales and Hayward refused to feed him his

evening meal and on January 15, 2004, Hernandez (no longer a party to this action) and Botello

refused to feed him his morning meal. Plaintiff alleges that Rousseau denied plaintiff a rules

violation hearing (denied him notice, witnesses, and falsified statements so as to make it appear

that a proper hearing was provided). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

 This court initially found that the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint were

sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for denial of access to the courts. 

However, defendants now move for dismissal on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies (as to his claims regarding denial of meals, approval of the false RVR,

failure to hold a proper disciplinary hearing) and that plaintiff cannot state a congnizable claim

against Fuhlrodt. 

1. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

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

“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal

standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 n.5 (2001)). 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, 532 U.S. at 741.

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 28 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 7
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

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy

which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at

3084.1(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.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5.

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative

defense 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. 

a. Defendant Rousseau

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his

claims against Rousseau for failing to submit his third formal/Director’s level appeal within

fifteen(15) working days of receiving an unacceptable lower level appeal decision. Defendants

allege that plaintiff was provided with his response to the second level review on September 8,

2004 and that plaintiff did not submit his appeal to the third formal/Director’s level of review

until October 12, 2004. However, in his reply to defendants’ reply, plaintiff submitted a copy of

his third formal/Director’s level appeal, which is dated as having been timely submitted on

September 22, 2004. Therefore, plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his

claims against Rousseau. 

b. Defendants Gonzales, Hayward, & Botello

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s appeals against Gonzales, Hayward, and Botello for

denial of his dinner on the 14 and breakfast on the 15 (since filed the day of and the day after

th th

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 28 Filed 02/26/08 Page 4 of 7
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

plaintiff filed his appeal as Butler’s conduct on the 13 ) were deemed excessive and rejected. th

Plaintiff argues (and the exhibits submitted show) that he submitted appeals on these

meal incidents and that both were rejected for not allowing seven days to elapse from his appeal

as to Butler’s conduct on the 13 . 

th

Plaintiff argues that the appeals coordinator failed to provide him with instruction on how

to submit his grievance per 15§ 3084.3(d). However, this statute provides for an appeals

coordinator to give instruction when a “rejection is based on improper documentation,” not when

rejected for excessive filings. 

Plaintiff next argues that he waited the two separate calendar weeks and resubmitted each

appeal, but that both were rejected. However, neither party has submitted copies of these resubmitted appeals, nor of their rejections. 

Plaintiff generally alleges in his opposition, that prison personnel deliberately impeded

his efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies and that various of his appeals were lost or

otherwise intentionally tampered with. It has been recognized that a remedy prison officials

prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy. Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529

(3d Cir. 2003); and Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001). However, plaintiff does

not argue that he was prevented from properly filing his appeals against Gonzales, Hayward, and

Bottello – rather he argues both were timely resubmitted and were thereafter rejected. Yet,

plaintiff does not submit any evidence to support his assertion, nor does he explain his failure to

submit these appeals to the next level of review. 

Plaintiff refers the court to see “In re Nimrod v. Knight” without providing the cite, or a

theory under which plaintiff believes that case is applicable to the issues in this motion. The

court is unable to locate any such case.

Thus, based on the evidence before the court, plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies regarding his claims against Gonzales, Hayward, & Botello.

c. Defendant Fuhlrodt

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his

claims against defendant Fuhlrodt indicating that either plaintiff failed to file an appeal, or it was

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 28 Filed 02/26/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6

screened out. The parties have not submitted any evidence of plaintiff having filed an appeal

regarding his claims against Fuhlrodt and plaintiff did not allege that he filed a subsequent

appeal. Thus, based on the evidence before the court, plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies regarding his claims against Fuhlrodt. 

2. Due Process

As stated in the court’s screening order, a prison inmate has no constitutionally

guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct which may result in the

deprivation of a protected liberty interest. Freeman v. Rideout 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2 Cir. 1986) nd

cert. denied 485 U.S. 982 (1988). As long as an inmate is afforded procedural due process in the

disciplinary hearing, allegations of a fabricated charge fail to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Hanrahan v. Lane 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7 Cir. 1984). th

Plaintiff claims Fuhlrodt violated his due process rights by approving a false RVR

charging plaintiff with assaulting prison staff. Plaintiff claims that, thereafter, Rousseau violated

his due process rights when he failed to hold a hearing on the issue, fabricated information, and

falsified documentation so as to appear as if a proper hearing had been conducted, which led to

plaintiff being found guilty of battery on a peace officer and resulted in an additional eighteen

(18) months in the SHU. Thus, as this court previously held, plaintiff stated a cognizable claim

against Fuhlrodt. However, as discussed above, dismissal is required based on plaintiff’s failure

to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims against Fuhlrodt.

II. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff appropriately exhausted his administrative remedies

regarding his claims against Rousseau. The court further that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies as to his claims against Gonzales, Hayward, and Bottello. The court

further finds that plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim, but failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies as to his claim(s) against Fuhlrodt. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed August 3, 2007, be granted in part and

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 28 Filed 02/26/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

denied in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies as to plaintiff’s claims against Rousseau be denied; 

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies as to plaintiff’s claims against Gonzales, Hayward, and Bottello

be granted without prejudice; 

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable

claim against Fuhlrodt be denied; and

d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies as to plaintiff’s claims against Fuhlrodt be granted 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). Within

twenty (20) 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: February 25, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 28 Filed 02/26/08 Page 7 of 7