Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01207-12/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

 Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint to raise additional 1

claims, but ultimately decided to proceed on the original complaint. Doc. 30.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS DAVID ANDREAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1207 FCD GGH P

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 /

Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are defendants’ May 20, 2010, motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 50), plaintiff’s May 14, 2010 motion for

sanctions (Doc. 49) and plaintiff’s July 9, 2010 motion for clarification (Doc 53).

Background

This case is currently proceeding on the original complaint filed on May 4, 2009,

with allegations against five defendants for violations of the Eighth Amendment and similar state

provisions. Plaintiff alleges that at some point after he was transferred to Mule Creek State 1

Prison (MCSP) on May 2, 2008, the defendants made him wait outside to attend his

Case 2:09-cv-01207-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 08/23/10 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

 That the administrative procedure cannot result in the particular form of relief requested 2

by the prisoner does not excuse exhaustion because some sort of relief or responsive action may

result from the grievance. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 737; see also Porter, 534 U.S. at 525 (purposes

of exhaustion requirement include allowing prison to take responsive action, filtering out

frivolous cases, and creating administrative records).

2

Classification Committee hearing on a day when it was 100 degrees and the air was smoky due to

forest fires. As a result of having to wait outside in the heat, plaintiff suffered an asthma attack

that lasted for three days. Plaintiff was also forced to stand in the cage for 2 1⁄2 hours contrary to

doctor’s orders.

Motion to Dismiss

Legal Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to

provide 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). 

Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S.

516, 524 (2002). Exhaustion is a prerequisite for all prisoner suits regarding the conditions of

their confinement, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and

whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532.

Exhaustion of all “available” remedies is mandatory; those remedies need not

meet federal standards, nor must they be “plain, speedy and effective.” Id. at 524; Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740, n. 5 (2001). Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in

grievance proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Booth, 532

U.S. at 741. A prisoner “seeking only money damages must complete a prison administrative

process that could provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated, but no money.” Id. at

734.2

A prisoner need not exhaust further levels of review once he has either received

Case 2:09-cv-01207-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 08/23/10 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

3

all the remedies that are “available” at an intermediate level of review, or has been reliably

informed by an administrator that no more remedies are available. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d

926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). As there can be no absence of exhaustion unless some relief

remains available, a movant claiming lack of exhaustion must demonstrate that pertinent relief

remained available, whether at unexhausted levels or through awaiting the results of the relief

already granted as a result of that process. Brown, 422 F.3d at 936-37.

The PLRA requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. Woodford v.

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s

deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function

effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Id. at

90-91. Thus, compliance with prison grievance procedures is required by the PLRA to properly

exhaust. Id. The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement cannot be satisfied “by filing an untimely or

otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Id. at 83-84.

The State of California provides its prisoners the right to appeal administratively

“any departmental decision, action, condition or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). It also provides them

the right to file appeals alleging misconduct by correctional officers and officials. Id. §

3084.1(e). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner

must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal

on a 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4)

third level appeal to the Director of the CDCR. Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F.Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D.

Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision from the Director’s level

of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense properly

raised by a defendant in an unenumerated Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b) motion. Jones v. Bock, 549

U.S. 199, 216 (2007). If the court concludes the prisoner has not exhausted non-judicial

Case 2:09-cv-01207-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 08/23/10 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 It does not appear plaintiff pursued this appeal to the final level. 3

4

remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315

F.3d 1108, 1119-1120 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants bear the burden of raising and proving

non-exhaustion. Id. at 1119. The court may resolve any disputed material facts on the

exhaustion issue by looking beyond the pleadings in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust. Id. at 1119-20. No presumption of truthfulness attaches to a plaintiff’s assertions

associated with the exhaustion requirement. See Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s and

Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988).

Discussion

Defendants argue that plaintiff has not exhausted the claims in this action. 

Defendants include a declaration from the chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch along with a print

out showing plaintiff’s fully completed appeal history. Defendants note that plaintiff transferred

to MCSP on May 2, 2008 and plaintiff filed the instant action on May 4, 2009. Therefore,

plaintiff needed to have exhausted the appeals process in that one year period. The appeal

records do not indicate any appeals properly exhausted in that time period. Reply at 17. The

records only indicate one appeal filed in the relevant time periods, on January 6, 2009, regarding

disciplinary issues that was screened out. Id.

Plaintiff includes in his opposition an inmate appeal he filed on July 9, 2008 and

the second level response from prison officials. Opposition at 23-26. Plaintiff’s appeal states 3

that he received another 30 days of C-status because he waited outside the program office and

waited to be called in and was unaware that he was expected to wait inside the program office. 

Id. There is no mention of any of the defendants forcing plaintiff to wait outside in the extreme

heat and plaintiff’s appeal only involves the extra C-status time. Plaintiff proceeds to say with

respect to the C-status time, “This decision seriously affects my desire to have an positive

program and is mentally egregious.” Opposition at 23. When queried on the form regarding the

Case 2:09-cv-01207-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 08/23/10 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

 While plaintiff’s claims involving C-status time were in his complaint, those claims 4

were dismissed, which was explicitly discussed in the court’s screening order. Doc. 9.

5

action he requests, it only involves C-status time, nothing regarding any medical treatment or

medical problems and it does not identify any of the defendants.

4

To the extent that plaintiff’s appeal may discuss a separate incident then what is

the basis of the instant complaint, then plaintiff has failed to exhaust regarding the Eighth

Amendment claims in the instant action.

To the extent that the appeal does involve the same incident as the underlying

claims then plaintiff has failed to properly exhaust the claim as plaintiff’s appeal completely

failed to mention any facts regarding medical complications resulting from standing outside in

extreme heat and smoke. 

In Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit, noted that

“the primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its resolution,

not to lay groundwork for litigation.” Id. at 1120 (citations omitted). In Griffin, the plaintiff

failed to mention in his grievance that the remedy to his problem that had been ordered by a

prison nurse had been ignored by the prison staff. As a result, the prison officials who were

aware of the nurse’s order reasonably believed that the order solved the problem. In view of

these facts, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his

administrative remedies because he did not provide notice of the prison staff’s alleged disregard

of the nurse’s order and the prison was never alerted “to the nature of his problem.” See id. at

1121. 

In the instant case, there was no way for prison officials to understand from

plaintiff’s grievance that the nature of his problem concerned medical problems from heat and

smoke. The appeal only discussed C-status time and does not state that any of the defendants

forced plaintiff to stand outside. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative

remedies and defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted.

Case 2:09-cv-01207-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 08/23/10 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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 5

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

6

Motion for Sanctions

On March 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions alleging that the

Attorney General’s Office, who represents defendants, informed prison officials of plaintiff’s

lawsuit and as a result, plaintiff could suffer retaliation. On April 30, 2010, the court denied

plaintiff’s motion for sanctions noting that plaintiff’s unsupported speculation did not warrant the

imposition of sanctions. However, the court noted that if plaintiff believed he was being

retaliated against for pursuing this civil rights action he could renew his motion. On May 14,

2010, plaintiff filed a new motion for sanctions that appears to allege retaliation. 

However, plaintiff’s motion is very sparse with facts and difficult to understand as

it relies on exhibits, most notably motions filed in another case. Plaintiff has also filed a very

similar motion, on May 13, 2010, in another case, No. CIV S-08-1410 LJO SMS.5

Plaintiff alleges that prison officials through use of the mail are interfering with

plaintiff’s ability to access the court. Plaintiff first contends that the Osteopathic Medical Board

of California cc’d a copy of letter to plaintiff also to the warden of the prison. Plaintiff also

states that third parties are sending letters to the litigation coordinator and not to plaintiff. It is

not clear how any of these actions can be construed as retaliation by prison officials against

plaintiff, when it is third parties sending the mail. Nor is it clear how plaintiff is being denied

access to the courts.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied as meritless.

Motion for Clarification

Plaintiff’s July 9, 2010, motion for clarification is in fact another motion for

sanctions against the Attorney General’s office. Plaintiff’s motion is meritless and the

undersigned chooses not to issue sanctions.

\\\\\

Case 2:09-cv-01207-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 08/23/10 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

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 20, 2010, motion for sanctions (Doc. 49) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s July 9, 2010, motion for clarification (Doc. 53) is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on

May 20, 2010, (Doc. 50), be granted and this case dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: 08/20/2010

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH: AB

andr1207.mtd

Case 2:09-cv-01207-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 08/23/10 Page 7 of 7