Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00466/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00466-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL R. PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00466-OWW-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT MUNOZ’S

MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED 

(Doc. 29)

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Findings and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

I. Background

Plaintiff Daniel R. Perez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 15, 2008. The

Court screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it

states a claim against Defendants Olmos, Perez, Sanchez, Paz, and Munoz for use of excessive

physical force, against Defendant Munoz for the unconstitutional conditions of confinement in cell

232, and against Defendants Marquez, Jimenez, Haines, and Talle for denial of medical care. Fed. 1

R. Civ. P. 8(a); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Alvarez v. Hill, 518

F.3d 1152, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2008). On September 11, 2009, Defendant Munoz filed a motion to

On April 3, 2009, Plaintiff’s claim arising from the conditions of confinement in cell 117 was dismissed,

1

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; and Defendants Clark, Roberson, Castello, Silva, and Blanks were

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them.

1

Case 1:08-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 03/24/10 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

dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against him for the unconstitutional conditions of confinement in cell 232

for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). On October 5,

2009, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Local Rule 230(l). Defendant Munoz filed a reply on October 2

9, 2009. 

II. Legal Standard

The exhaustion provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that “[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, 549 U.S.

199, 211 (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). 

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has an administrative

grievance system for inmates’ complaints regarding conditions of confinement. Cal. Code Regs.,

tit. 15 § 3084.1 (West 2009). The process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602. Id. at §

3084.2(a). Fourlevels 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 or

second formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). 

CDCR also has a process which allows inmates with disabilities to request a reasonable

modification or accommodation by submitting a CDCR Form 1824. Id. at § 3085(a). Inmates may

appeal any decision they are dissatisfied with by attaching the 1824 form to a 602 appeal form and

Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to

2

exhaust by the Court in an order filed on July 13, 2009. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). (Doc.

26.)

2

Case 1:08-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 03/24/10 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

submitting it to the second formal level of review. Id. § at 3085(b). 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, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

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, 549 U.S. at 211-12; 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. 

III. Discussion

At the time of the events relevant to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Munoz, Plaintiff was

incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (“SATF”) in

Corcoran, California. (Doc. 15, 1 Amd. Comp.) st

Plaintiff alleges that after refusing to accept a cellmate who was a danger to him, he was

placed in cell 232 by Defendant Munoz as punishment. The cell was located in a unit for mental

health patients on medication and Plaintiff was subjected to loud noises day and night. Plaintiff

alleges that inmates without mental health issues are not supposed to be housed in that unit, and he

was unable to sleep, read, or think for many days, which included days he was in court. (Id. at pp.

6-8.) 

In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, prisoners are required to comply with the

applicable procedural rules governing the appeals process, and it is the appeals process itself which 

defines the level of detail necessary in an appeal. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218; Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d

3

Case 1:08-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 03/24/10 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

1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). In California, prisoners are required only to describe the problem and

the action requested. Tit. 15 § 3084.2(a). Therefore, the appeal must “‘alert[] the prison to the

nature of the wrong for which redress is sought’” and “‘provide enough information, ... to allow

prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures’” Griffin at 1120 (quoting Strong v. David,

297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002) and adopting the Strong standard and quoting ), which “advances

the primary purpose of . . . notify[ing] the prison of a problem,” id. (citation omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Munoz have to do with the conditions of his

confinement within cell 232 that amount to a violation of the Eight Amendment – constant noise

such that he was not able to sleep, read, or think for a number of days. Defendant Munoz submits 

evidence in the form of appeals logs and declarations from Appeals Coordinator R. Hall and Chief

of Inmate Appeals N. Grannis showing that Plaintiff did not file any inmate appeals complaining of

excessive levels of noise in cell 232. In opposition, Plaintiff submitted copies of four inmate appeals

he filed – none of which in any way mentioned the volume and/or duration of noise while he was

confined in cell 232. The only allegations stated by Plaintiff in any of these four inmate appeals that 

addressed his conditions of confinement mentioned that it was extremely cold while he was on

“Management Status,” because of a door being left open (despite his requests that it be closed). 

(Doc. 32, pp. 19-20.) Further, the main thrust of this inmate appeal, which was screened out as

untimely, was that Plaintiff should not have been held in the psychiatric area and that management

status was being used to unjustly punish him. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations in his inmate appeal (that he was unjustlyplaced on management status

in the vicinity of inmates with psychiatric issues, and was not provided appropriate clothing for

exposure to extreme cold when a door was left open) do not provide enough information for Plaintiff

to have exhausted his administrative remedies on his conditions of confinement claim against

Defendant Munoz as there is nothing about these complaints that would alert prison officials that

they needed to take responsive measures to reduce the volume and duration of noise experienced by

occupants of cell 232. Griffin at 1120. 

4

Case 1:08-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 03/24/10 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

Thus, Defendant Munoz’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against him for the

unconstitutional conditions of confinement in cell 232 should be granted.

 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Defendant Munoz has shown that Plaintiff did not exhaust his Eighth Amendment claim

against hem and he is therefore entitled to dismissal of the claim. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY 3

RECOMMENDS that Defendant Munoz’s motion to dismiss, filed September 11, 2009, be

GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Munoz for the unconstitutional conditions of

confinement in cell 232 be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies.

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: March 24, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

“[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.”

3

Jones at 211 (citation omitted). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust, it does not reach Defendants’

motion for summary judgment, filed September 29, 2009.

5

Case 1:08-cv-00466-OWW -SMS Document 39 Filed 03/24/10 Page 5 of 5