Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01648/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01648-8/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 excessive force claim against any defendants other than Davis and Key, and plaintiff’s due 1

process, equal protection, and conspiracy claims were dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, and defendants Sheppard-Brooks, Ruiz, Martinez, and Wilson were dismissed from this

action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them. (Doc. 14.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. D. SHEPPARD-BROOKS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01648-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

BE GRANTED

(Doc. 21)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Eric Johnson (“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 December 30, 2005, against defendants Davis and Key for use of excessive force,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On January 11, 2007, pursuant to the unenumerated portion 1

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendant Key (“defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss

based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies in compliance 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 04/06/07 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 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 2

on October 2, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 16.)

2

with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 29, 2007, defendant 2

filed a reply on February 6, 2007, and plaintiff filed a surreply on February 20, 2007. (Docs. 22, 23,

24.) Because plaintiff does not have a right to file a surreply and was not granted leave of court to

file a surreply, the surreply is not considered. The court notes for the record that consideration of

the surreply would not have affected to outcome of this Findings and Recommendations. 

B. 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

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

dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 04/06/07 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

C. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections 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 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. (Doc. 1, § III.) Plaintiff identifies log number 05-1089 as the appeal in question, and

attaches copies of the first and second level responses to his complaint. (Id., § III, Exhibits A & B.)

In their motion, defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal of this action because

plaintiff failed to pursue his appeal to the third and final level of review. In support of their motion,

defendants submit evidence that plaintiff received a first formal level decision and a second level

decision, but did not file his appeal at the third and final level for review. (Doc. 21, Castillo Dec.,

¶¶4, 5; Grannis Dec., ¶4.)

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 argues that “[a]fter receiving the Second Level decision, [he]

promptly forwarded the appeal to Sacramento for Third Level Review.” (Doc. 22, pg. 1.) Plaintiff

argues that the appeal was “intercepted and discarded to prevent [him] from obtaining a Third Level

Review.” (Id.) Plaintiff argues that defendants have not proven he did not seek a third level review.

(Id., pg. 2.)

///

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 04/06/07 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

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that after receiving the second level response to his

appeal, he timely submitted the appeal to the Director’s Level of review for consideration, and it was

intercepted and discarded. 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 11, 2007, be GRANTED, and this action 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). Within thirty (30)

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: April 5, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01648-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 04/06/07 Page 4 of 4