Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031-14/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

27

28 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on October 28, 2005. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIDGETT BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06031-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

SCHOONARD, HODGDON AND PAINE FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 48)\

OBJECTIONS DUE MARCH 26, 2007

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff s 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 amended complaint, filed

February 18, 2005, on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim and retaliation claim against

defendant Suryadevara and plaintiff’s retaliation claims against defendants Hodgdon, Schoonard and

Paine. On March 15, 2006, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants filed a

motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative

remedies on plaintiff’s claims against Hodgdon, Schoonard and Paine. Plaintiff did not file an

opposition to the motion.1

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 03/12/07 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. Exhaustion Requirement

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).

“Proper exhaustion[, which] demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical

procedural rules . . . .” is required, Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006), and may not be

satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal,” id. at 2382.

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

2002).

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). 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. 

C. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process isinitiated by submitting a CDC

Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 03/12/07 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

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 formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). 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, 126 S.Ct. at 2383; McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

In amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Hodgdon retaliated against her for

seeking to speak with a sergeant regarding her educational program placement and that defendants

Schoonard and Paine retaliated against her for filing administrative appeals. 

Defendants Hodgdon, and Paine move for dismissal of the claims against them on the ground

that plaintiff did not file inmate appeals grieving the claims against them. Defendant Schoonard

moves for dismissal on the ground the plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies with

respect to her claim against him. 

In support of their motion, defendants Hodgon and Paine submit evidence that the appeals

office at Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) has no record of any appeals submitted by

plaintiff concerning the claims against defendants Hodgon and Paine. Brown Dec., ¶ 8. Plaintiff

has not filed any opposition to the motion. The court therefore finds that plaintiff did not exhaust

her retaliation claims against defendants Hodgdon and Brown.

Defendant Schoonard argues he is entitled to dismissal because although plaintiff filed an

administrative grievance with respect to her claims against him, she failed to fully exhaust the

grievance. Defendant presents evidence that on October 6, 2003, plaintiff filed an administrative

appeal regarding her classroom assignment. Brown Declaration, ¶ 7, Exhibit A. The appeal was

pursued through the second level, where it was denied. Id. There is no record in plaintiff’s central

file of her ever having submitted this appeal for a Director’s Level Decision. Plaintiff did not oppose

the motion. The court therefore finds that plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim against

defendant Schoonard. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff did not exhaust his claims against defendants Hodgdon,

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 03/12/07 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

4

Schoonard and Paine. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, filed March 15, 2006, be GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hodgdon, Schoonard and Paine be dismissed,

without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust; and

3. This action proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims against

defendant Suryadevara. 

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). On or before March

26, 2007, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 03/12/07 Page 4 of 4