Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05321/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05321-12/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

27

28 1Defendant Adams was dismissed by the Court on July 23, 2003. (Doc. 8.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOAIZA, M.D.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5321 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION

(Doc. #55.) 

 Josh Thomas Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed March 31, 2003, against Defendant Loiaza, M.D., for

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Docs.

6, 8.) 

On February 21, 2006, Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 55.) Plaintiff did not oppose the

motion. 

A. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 04/19/06 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

2

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that several medical doctors had

recommended that he receive a bypass surgery, however, Defendant Loaiza denied Plaintiff’s

request for the surgery on the grounds of budget constraints. (Doc. 5.)

B. EXHAUSTION

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 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, 534

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 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). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is

pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

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). In order to meet this

burden, Defendants must show that further administrative remedies are available to Plaintiff. 

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 04/19/06 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

3

Brown v. Valoff, -- F.3d--, 422 F.3d 926, 2005 WL 2129069, *7 (9th Cir.2005). The Ninth

Circuit has also found exhaustion when a prisoner has demonstrated that his grievance has been

rejected as untimely and he could "go no further in the prison's administrative system; no

remedies remained available to him." Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2005). 

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 curiam)). 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. The Ninth

Circuit has rejected a total exhaustion rule and thus, a court is not required to dismiss an entire

action when a Section 1983 complaint contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Lira v.

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 2005 WL 2850115 (9th Cir. 2005.) 

In this case, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff filed numerous inmate appeals concerning various

requests for accommodation but only one with regard to his request for gastric bypass surgery. In

that appeal, Log No. SATF-B-03-00073, Plaintiff requested gastric bypass surgery because

various other doctors had recommended it for his condition. (Exh. E, Motion to Dismiss

[hereinafter “Motion”] Plaintiff appealed the denial of his request to the Director’s level,

however, the appeal was not received until March 27, 2003, after Plaintiff initiated this action.

Grannis Decl., at ¶ 5; Exh. A, Grannis Decl. The appeal was denied at the Director’s level on

May 30, 2003, more than two months after he initiated suit in this action. Id. Defendants note

further that the inmate appeal concerning the gastric bypass request made no reference to

Defendant Loaiza. 

As noted above, Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion. 

Under the PLRA, an inmate is required to use the administrative process that the state

provides in order to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181,

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 04/19/06 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

4

1183 (9th Cir.2005). In preparing an administrative appeal, California regulations provide that

"[t]he appellant shall use a CDC Form 602 (rev. 12-87), Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form, to

describe the problem and action requested." See Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a). The

applicable CDC form does not require identification of any specific persons. Plaintiff completed

the requisite form and described his medical condition and the action requested. In "[d]oing so,

[Plaintiff] availed himself of the administrative process the state gave him. The PLRA does not

require more." Butler, 397 F.3d at 1183. Thus, Plaintiff cannot be faulted for purposes of

exhaustion for not naming Defendant specifically in his inmate appeal. 

A review of the documentation provided reveals that Defendant’s are correct in their

assertion that Plaintiff did not complete the administrative appeals process prior to initiating this

lawsuit. However, the Court finds Plaintiff’s inmate appeal insufficient for the purpose of

exhaustion on yet another ground, namely, that Plaintiff did not grieve the issue presented in this

case. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Section 1997e(a) was “designed to reduce the

quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits, affords the corrections officials an opportunity

to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case. In some

instances corrective action taken in response to an inmate’s grievance might improve prison

administration and satisfy the inmate, thereby obviating the need for litigation.” Porter v. Nussle,

534 U.S. 516, 517, 122 S.Ct. 983 (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 737, 121 S.Ct. 1819

(2001)). 

Here, according to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s allegation is that his Eighth

Amendment rights were violated because “Defendant Mr. Loaiza (MD) denied my request for a

gastric bypass surgery on March 5, 2003; Defendant’s reason for the denial was that the state is

‘broke’.” (Amended Complaint at 3.) The inmate appeal filed by Plaintiff, however, only

describes Plaintiff’s physical condition, informs that three doctors recommended the surgery

concludes that surgery is needed to reduce his pain. Plaintiff then requests that he be

“schedule[d] [] for gastric bypass surgery by a qualified surgeon, soon.” (Exh. E, unnumbered

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 04/19/06 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 2

Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form, Log No. 03-0073, dated December 28, 2002. 

5

page 3.)2 There is no indication that Plaintiff previously requested the surgery or that it had been

denied by anyone at the institution at any time. Based on the evidence before the Court, the

Court finds that the inmate appeal is insufficient to put the prison on notice of Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim and thus, it is unexhausted. 

C. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss on the basis of

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies be GRANTED and the action be

dismissed in its entirety. The Court will suspend discovery proceedings in this action pending

resolution of these Findings by the District Court. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 04/19/06 Page 5 of 5