Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02343/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02343-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUILLIE L. HARVEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. AYALA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

(ECF No. 18)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Plaintiff Quillie L. Harvey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff initiated this action with a Complaint filed December 16, 2010. (Compl.,

ECF No. 1.) On December 22, 2011 the Court screened that Complaint and, finding that

it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, directed Plaintiff to notify

the Court whether he wished to proceed on that claim alone or file an amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff informed the Court he was willing to proceed on his cognizable

claim, and the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and certain

Defendants. (ECF Nos. 12 & 13.) Thus, Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants Ayala and

Martinez. on his excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment to the United States

Constitution

On June 13, 2012, Defendants Ayala and Martinez filed a motion to dismiss on two

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 41 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 8
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

grounds: 1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to commencing this

action; and, 2) Plaintiff is contesting a rule violation conviction that lengthened his sentence

so his remedy must be pursued under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 18.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 2, 2012. (Pl.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 29.) Defendants filed

a reply. (Defs.’ Reply, ECF No. 23.) Pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.

2012) and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court notified Plaintiff of

his rights and the requirements for opposing the motion and gave him an opportunity to file

a supplemental opposition. (ECF No. 24.) In response, Plaintiff filed a supplemental

opposition. (Pl.’s Supplemental Opp’n, ECF No. 30.) Defendants filed a supplemental

reply. (Defs.’ Supplemental Reply, ECF No. 35.)

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is now ready for ruling pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) stipulates, “No 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). Therefore, prisoners are

required to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock,

549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). The Supreme Court held that “the PLRA's exhaustion

requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some

other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Further, the exhaustion of

remedies is required, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner, as long as the

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the prisoner's complaint. Booth

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

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has an

administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints; the process is initiated by

submitting a CDCR Form 602. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, 3084.2(a) (2009). 

During the time relevant to this case, four levels of appeal existed: an informal level, a first

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 41 Filed 01/30/13 Page 2 of 8
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

formal level, a second formal level, and a third formal level, also known as the “Director's

Level”; each successive appeal had to be submitted within fifteen working days of the

event being appealed. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). To properly exhaust administrative 1

remedies, a prisoner must comply with the deadlines and other applicable procedural rules. 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006).

The exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a) is not a pleading requirement, but rather

an affirmative defense. Defendants have the burden of proving plaintiff failed to exhaust

the available administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the District Court. Jones

v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). A motion raising a prisoner's failure to exhaust the

administrative remedies is properly asserted by way of an unenumerated motion under

Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003); Ritza v. Int'l

Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per

curium). In determining whether a case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust

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

issues of fact” in a procedure that is “closely analogous to summary judgment.” Id. at

1119–20. When the court concludes the prisoner has not exhausted all of his available

administrative remedies, “the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice.” Id.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Claims

The essential allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint are summarized as follows:

Plaintiff was transferred from one prison to another in August 2010 and during the

transfer process, he was housed at Wasco State Prison for a night. (Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff

was housed with an incompatible roommate and informed DefendantAyala of the situation. 

(Id. at 5-6.) Defendant Ayala threatened Plaintiff with physical harm and pepper spray if

Plaintiff did not go to his assigned cell. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff returned to his assigned cell but

Emergency changes to the regulations became effective on January 28, 2011. The changes

1

occurred after the events at issue here and are therefore irrelevant to the resolution of Defendants’ motion

to dismiss.

-3-

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 41 Filed 01/30/13 Page 3 of 8
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

Defendant Ayala still placed the pepper spray against Plaintiff’s face and lunged at him. 

(Id.) Plaintiff asked Defendant Martinez for help. (Id.) Defendant Martinez instead used

pepper spray on Plaintiff and Defendant Ayala hit Plaintiff on the back. (Id.) Plaintiff was

dragged out of the building, placed in handcuffs, and taken to a cage. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed staff complaints on September 6 and 22, 2010. (Compl. at 8.) Plaintiff

was issued a Rules Violation Report on September 9, 2010. (Id.) 

B. Defendants’ Motion

Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) on the ground that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Defendants

also move for dismissal because Plaintiff contests a rule violation conviction which altered

the length of his sentence, but he has failed to successfully challenge his conviction under

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Defendants are correct on their argument that Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Plaintiff filed this action on December 16, 2010. (Compl. at 1.) To have properly

exhausted his claims, Plaintiff must have submitted an inmate appeal regarding the claims

which give rise to this action and obtained a third level decision prior to December 16,

2010. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

The incident at issue in Plaintiff’s action occurred on August 30, 2010. (Compl. at

5.) After this date, Plaintiff filed two relevant appeals. Plaintiff appealed the Rules

Violation Report that he received as a result of the incident in WSP-10-10241, an appeal

that was completely reviewed when it was denied at the third level by the Chief of the

Inmate Appeals Branch on May 19, 2011. (Lozano Decl., ECF No. 18-1 at ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) 

Plaintiff also filed a staff complaint regarding the incident, WSP-11-00246, which was

completely reviewed when it was denied by the Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch on

September 14, 2011. (Ortega Decl., ECF No. 18-3 at ¶ 13; Lozano Decl. at ¶ 4, Ex. 2.)

Plaintiff filed other unrelated appeals between the date of the incident and the date

-4-

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 41 Filed 01/30/13 Page 4 of 8
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

he initiated this action. He filed two additional non-health care appeals accepted for review

at the first or second level during the relevant time period. (Ortega Decl. at ¶ 13.) One,

WSP-11-00217, related to a funds issue and was granted at the first level of review. (Id.

at ¶ 13, Ex. 5.) The other, WSP-11-0248 related to an Institution Classification Committee

decision and proceeded to the third level of review. (Id. at ¶ 13, Ex. 3.) Neither of these

appeals are relevant to this action because they do not touch on the claim at issue in

Plaintiff’s action.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because he

contests a conviction of a rules violation but has failed to successfully overturn his

conviction as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As a result of the August 2011 incident,

Plaintiff was convicted of a Rules Violation Report and assessed a forfeiture of 180 days

of credit. (Compl. at Ex. D.) A finding in Plaintiff’s favor on his claims would allegedly

invalidate his conviction. A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action fails to state a cognizable claim where

a favorable ruling would “necessarily validate” the administrative revocation of credits. 

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997); see also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 486 n.6 (1994).

C. Plaintiff’s Opposition

Plaintiff alleges that he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit

because he filed a staff complaint appeal on September 9, 2010 that was never processed.

(Pl.’s Opp’n at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that the prison had a pattern of failing to process staff

complaints and inasmuch as he attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies but was

unable to do so, he should be exempt from this requirement. (Id. at 3-4.)

Plaintiff also alleges that his claims are not Heck barred because he is not seeking

to overturn any Rules Violation Report. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 4.)

D. Defendants’ Reply

Defendants maintain that Plaintiff failed sufficiently to exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to filing this suit. (Defs.’ Reply at 1-2.) The CDCR does not have any

record of Plaintiff’s September 2010 appeal. (Id. at 2.) Defendants allege that this appeal

-5-

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 41 Filed 01/30/13 Page 5 of 8
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

is a fabrication as the copy submitted by Plaintiff does not have a log number. (Id.)

The prison appeals process was available to Plaintiff as evidenced by the fact that

several of Plaintiff’s appeals were processed and proceeded to the third level of review. 

(Defs.’ Reply at 2.)

E. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Opposition

Plaintiff alleges that his September 9, 2010 appeal is not a fabrication and submits

various pages of his own handwritten correspondence to indicate that the appeal was filed. 

(Pl.’s Supplemental Opp’n at 4-5, Ex. A-H.)

F. Defendants’ Supplemental Reply

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to rebut their declarations regarding the

availability of the appeals process because he presents unauthenticated documents to

overcome their declarations. (Defs.’ Supplemental Reply at 1-2.) While Defendants

provided the Court with official logs regarding Plaintiff’s appeal, Plaintiff simply presents

unauthenticated handwritten documents to overcome Defendants’ official ones. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff has failed to prove he complied with PLRA requirements. (Id. at 3.)

G. Discussion

The Eighth Amendment claim on which Plaintiff is currently proceeding was not

properly exhausted.

This Court previously found that Plaintiff’s pleading raised a cognizable Eighth

Amendment claim against Defendants Martinez and Ayala for using excessive force

against him on August 30, 2010. However, the papers before the Court do not reflect any

appeal regarding the incident that was exhausted prior to filing this suit. To have properly

exhausted his claims, Plaintiff must have submitted an inmate appeal regarding the claims

which give rise to this action and obtained a third level decision prior to December 16,

2010. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

Plaintiff filed two relevant staff complaints, neither of which were completely

exhausted at the time he filed this suit on December 16, 2010. Appeal WSP-10-01241

-6-

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 41 Filed 01/30/13 Page 6 of 8
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

which was about the Rules Violation Report filed against Plaintiff after the incident was only

completed on May 19, 2011. (Defs.’ Mot. at Ex. 1.) Appeal No. WSP-11-00246 regarding

the incident itself was only completed on September 14, 2011. (Id. at Ex. 2.)

Plaintiff’s allegation that he filed a relevant appeal on September 9, 2010 but it was

lost is not corroborated and is not credible. Defendants note that the fact it lacks an appeal

numbers suggests it was not in fact ever filed. Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition offers

nothing but self-created and self-serving information in response. (Pl.’s Supplemental

Opp’n at 4-5, Ex. B-F.) None of the information submitted shows exhaustion. Its

uncorroborated nature, especially in light of the points made by the Defendants, leaves

it an insufficient basis for the Court to find that Plaintiff attempted to exhaust but was

denied that option by others. Nothing filed by Plaintiff creates any real question as to the

accuracy of Defendants’ history of his administrative appeals. Defendants have satisfied

their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The

Court thus orders that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety and this

action be dismissed without prejudice.2

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prevents Plaintiff from

proceeding on his current claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff may re-file this action

once his administrative remedies are exhausted.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants’

motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) be granted and that this action be DISMISSED without

prejudice.

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). Within

fourteen (14) 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

Given its finding herein, the Court need not and will not reach Defendants’ alternative argument

2

that Plaintiff’s only avenue for relief is under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

-7-

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 41 Filed 01/30/13 Page 7 of 8
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

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

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1 st, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

il0i0d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-8-

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 41 Filed 01/30/13 Page 8 of 8