Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06324/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06324-1/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

 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment by the

court in an order filed on August 14, 2000. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN RONNELL ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICKIE McCOY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:99-CV-6324-REC-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED

(Doc. 97)

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Alvin Ronnell Ross (“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 second amended complaint, filed May 21, 2001, against defendants McCoy and Sumabat

(“defendant”) for retaliation. (Doc. 43.) On November 12, 2004, defendants filed a motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Doc. 97-99.) Plaintiff

filed an opposition on January 13, 2005.1 (Doc. 105-107.) On June 28, 2005, the court issued an

order notifying plaintiff of the requirements for opposing unenumerated Rule 12(b) motions to

dismiss and providing plaintiff with the opportunity to supplement his opposition. Wyatt v. Terhune,

315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 109.) Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition on

July 14, 2005, and defendants filed a reply on July 19, 2005. (Docs. 110, 111.)

Case 1:99-cv-06324-REC-LJO Document 112 Filed 07/22/05 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

2

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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

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

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 v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

“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, 532 U.S.

at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

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

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

(2004). 

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.

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Based on the general principle that

summary judgment is on the merits while dismissal of an action for failure to exhaust is not on the

merits, 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 (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues

Case 1:99-cv-06324-REC-LJO Document 112 Filed 07/22/05 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

of fact. Id. at 1119-20. If the court concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative

remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

C. Discussion

Plaintiff filed this action on September 10, 1999. (Doc. 1.) In their motion, defendants argue

that they are entitled to dismissal of this action because exhaustion occurred on August 24, 2000,

almost one year after plaintiff filed suit. In support of their motion, defendants submit a copy

plaintiff’s exhausted appeal. (Doc. 99, Chen Dec., Exhibit B.)

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that this suit was initially one for violation of state law and

exhaustion of state claims was not required. (Doc. 110, ¶ 4, 10.) Plaintiff further argues that his

amended complaint was filed on May 21, 2001, and exhaustion occurred prior to that date. (Id., ¶

10.)

Plaintiff’s arguments are without merit. This action has been construed as one brought

pursuant to section 1983 since its initiation. Although plaintiff utilized, in part, a state form

complaint, plaintiff’s claims were clearly brought pursuant to federal and state law, and have been

treated as such by this court. (Doc. 1, pgs. 4-5, 7.) In his original complaint, plaintiff alleged claims

for relief for violation of his federal constitutional rights. Section 1983 is the vehicle by which such

claims are brought in federal court. Accordingly, plaintiff’s attempt to recast his claims as ones

brought solely under state law so as to avoid the mandate of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is rejected. 

Further, although this action is currently proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint

filed on May 21, 2001, the suit itself was initially filed on September 10, 1999. Exhaustion must

occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff

may not exhaust while the suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. Because exhaustion

occurred after this suit was filed, defendants are entitled to dismissal of this action, without

prejudice. 

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ unenumerated

Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit, filed November 12, 2004, be

///

Case 1:99-cv-06324-REC-LJO Document 112 Filed 07/22/05 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

2

 In light of the recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to exhaust, the court does not reach

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Perez v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr., 182 F.2d 532, 534 (7th Cir. 1999). 

4

GRANTED, and this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a).2

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: July 22, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06324-REC-LJO Document 112 Filed 07/22/05 Page 4 of 4