Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00602/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00602-14/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELDON BURROWS,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0602 AWI WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SERGEANT GIFFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by

Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the

court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has opposed the motion.

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate

in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at Wasco State

Prison, brings this civil rights action against defendant correctional

officials employed by the Department of Corrections at Wasco State

Prison. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Sergeant

Gifford; Correctional Officer Cera; Correctional Officer Macias. 

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that he was injured as a

result of a dangerous condition. Plaintiff is a diabetic inmate and has

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 48 Filed 09/12/08 Page 1 of 6
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

2

been on dialysis for approximately 14 months. Three times a week,

Plaintiff is transported to a hospital in Bakersfield for dialysis treatment. 

On May 3, 2005, upon arrival at the clinic in Bakersfield, Officer Macias

pulled out the step on the van, stepped on to the curb, and directed

Plaintiff to exit the van. Plaintiff was shacked with handcuffs and leg

irons. Plaintiff alleges that “because of a broken step.” he fall face forward

into the road, injuring himself. Plaintiff alleges that the step had been

broken for some time, and Defendants knew of the condition, as the

dialysis patients had complained of it. 

Defendants move to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. The Civil Rights Act under

which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . .

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of

the United States. . . to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution. . . shall be liable to the party injured

in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper

proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 7 of The Prison Litigation Reform Act was amended to

read as follows: 

(a) APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. No

action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions

under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(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). In Booth v. Churner,532 U.S. 731 (2001). 

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 48 Filed 09/12/08 Page 2 of 6
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

The Supreme Court, in addressing the question of whether a prisoner

need exhaust available remedies when monetary damages are unavailable,

held that “Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, regardless

of the relief offered through administrative procedures.” Id. at 1821. In

order to bring his claim in federal court, plaintiff must completely exhaust

his available administrative remedies. In California, there are four levels

of review - informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third

formal level. The third formal level constitutes the Director’s decision on

appeal. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.5(e)(2). 

Defendants support their motion with the declaration of Andrew S.

Altnow, a Correctional Counselor II and Administrative Segregation

Specialist at CSP Corcoran. Mr. Altnow declares that on May 12, 2005,

Plaintiff filed a CDC 602 to be answered at the informal level by the

Transportation Office regarding a broken step. The step was repaired, but

compensation was not granted as Plaintiff had indicated to Officer Cera

that he had fallen because he had gotten his chain tangled up. Altnow

Decl., ¶ 7. 

Mr. Altnow further declares that Plaintiff did not respond to the

informal review until June 2005, thereby exceeding time constraints. Mr.

Altnow makes the conclusory statement that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the

exhaustion requirement regarding his claim. Id.,¶ 8. Mr. Altnow attaches

as Exhibit A, a copy of the inmate grievance at issue, log no. WSP-A-05-

00804. This exhibit indicates that the appeal was granted, but

compensation was denied.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff filed a grievance and failed to timely

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 48 Filed 09/12/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

pursue it to the final level of review. In his opposition, Plaintiff argues

that the time limits were met. Plaintiff indicates that he filed his

grievance on May 5, 2005, “and then the time limit ran out for them to give

me an answer so I started writing letters to appeals coordinator Mr.

Altnow inquiring about my 602 and I got no response from his office so I

wrote the Warden a letter Ms. Vasquez asking her why the appeals

coordinator wouldn’t see Exhibit B respond to letters inquiring about a

602's whereabouts.” 

Defendants’ Exhibit A includes the written response to Plaintiff’s

grievance, indicating that the grievance was granted insofar as the step

has been repaired. The grievance was denied in part because Plaintiff was

denied compensation. On the same for, Plaintiff indicates that he is

dissatisfied. Specifically, Plaintiff indicates, as the formal level, that “I’m

asking to be compensated in the amount of 1,000,000 for pain, suffering

and emotional distress which continues to this date.” The grievance was

denied at the informal level on May 16, 2005. Though Plaintiff completed

the portion of the form indicating that he was dissatisfied, he did not

indicate the date submitted. 

Clearly, Plaintiff filed a grievance at the informal level and was

dissatisfied with his response. Here, plaintiff appealed the issue regarding

his injury at the informal level, but failed to pursue it farther than the

formal level. The appeal was denied as to Plaintiff’s request for

compensation. untimely. Defendants bear the burden of pleading and

proving exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9 Cir. 2003). th

Here, the exhibits submitted by Defendants indicate that Plaintiff did not

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 48 Filed 09/12/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

proceed with further review of the denial of his request for compensation. 

 In his opposition, Plaintiff states that he wrote a letter to the

Transportation Sergeant, inquiring about his grievance. Plaintiff states

that “the sergeant sent me a copy of a copy he had made and sent it to me

and on the right side of the copy he dated he dated when he gave it to me. 

The copy which was dated 6/18/05.” Plaintiff states that he “tried to

resubmit it on 6/30/05 12 days later.” Plaintiff refers the court to Exhibit D. 

Plaintiff attaches no exhibits to his opposition. Exhibit D to the

declaration of Andrew Altnow is a CDC 128-B Chrono regarding Plaintiff’s

letter to the Warden. The letter that Plaintiff sent to the Warden “was

received by the Appeals Office on June 2, 2005.” The letter includes

Plaintiff’s complaint that the Appeals Coordinator will no longer answer

his letters, and would not forward an appeal regarding the fall. 

“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary” and

the exhaustion requirement may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or

otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct.

2378, 2382 (2006). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an

agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. at 2386. In

Ngo, the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s view that Plaintiff

had exhausted his remedies, as they were no longer available because

Plaintiff has not filed a timely grievance. Plaintiff offers no exhibits, and

makes no assertion, that he exhausted his administrative remedies to the

final, Director’s level of review.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’

motion to dismiss be granted, and this action be dismissed without

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 48 Filed 09/12/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available administrative

remedies prior to filing suit.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United

States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty 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 ten days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all

objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d

449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the specified time th

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: September 12, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00602-AWI-WMW Document 48 Filed 09/12/08 Page 6 of 6