Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01595-10/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

JOHN ERIC CHATMON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1595 DFL GGH P

vs.

MR. DEMERS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies filed December 6, 2006, by defendants Van Leer, Alcorn and Stephens.

Defendant DeMars has not yet been served. After carefully considering the record, the court

recommends that defendants’ motion be granted.

On July 24, 2006, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for a more

definite statement. On August 23, 2006, the court construed the opposition to be the second

amended complaint. 

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01595-ALA Document 43 Filed 04/25/07 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

2

Plaintiff alleges that in 2004 he had several altercations with his cellmate of which

defendants Stephens and Alcorn were aware. Plaintiff alleges that these defendants encouraged

plaintiff’s cellmate to become involved in another altercation with plaintiff, as a result of which

plaintiff was stabbed in June 2004. Defendants Stephens and Alcorn pepper sprayed plaintiff

after the stabbing. Following the incident, defendant Van Lear failed to have plaintiff’s eyes

properly decontaminated. 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides 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.” In order for California prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies, they must

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

appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, 3) second level appeal to the institution head or

designee, and 4) third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. 

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. Id. at 1237-38.

In Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001) the Supreme Court held that inmates

must exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures. 121 S. Ct. at 1825. Therefore, inmates seeking money damages must completely

exhaust their administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002).

In the motion to dismiss, defendants state that plaintiff did not file any

administrative appeals regarding the claims raised in the complaint. See declaration of N.

Grannis December 6, 2006; declaration of S. Babich filed December 6, 2006.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01595-ALA Document 43 Filed 04/25/07 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

3

In his opposition filed March 14, 2007, plaintiff alleges that after the incident

alleged in the complaint he was placed in administrative segregation. Opposition, p. 3. Plaintiff

claims that his 602, i.e. informal level appeal, was intercepted by prison officials while he was in

administrative segregation. Id. Plaintiff claims that prison officials accused plaintiff of making

false accusations against staff and warned of what may become of plaintiff if any further claims

were made. Id.

Plaintiff’s claim that prison officials intercepted his appeal and threatened him are

palpably contrived. The court also observes that plaintiff attaches to his opposition other

administrative appeals he filed after the June 2004 incident. For example, attached is a first level

appeal dated July 23, 2005, addressing plaintiff’s complaint that Correctional Officers Sanchez,

Brautigan and Trullinger harassed plaintiff. Also attached is an August 18, 2005, First Level

Appeal addressing plaintiff’s complaint that Officer Doyle used excessive force and sexually

harassed plaintiff. While these appeals are dated approximately one year after the June 2004

incident, they demonstrate plaintiff’s willingness to complain about staff misconduct via the

administrative appeal process, somewhat undermining his claim that he felt too intimidated to

pursue his grievances regarding the June 2004 incident.

For the reasons discussed above, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies as to the claims against defendants Stephens, Alcorn and Van Leer. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ December 6,

2006, motion to dismiss be granted. 

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 twenty

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

Case 2:05-cv-01595-ALA Document 43 Filed 04/25/07 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

4

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: 4/25/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

chat1595.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-01595-ALA Document 43 Filed 04/25/07 Page 4 of 4