Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02318/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02318-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Jowell Finley,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. De La Trinidad et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 11cv2318 JLS (PCL)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS 

 (Doc. 8.) 

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jowell Finley, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against

Defendants Officer De La Trinidad, Officer Diaz, Sergeant Martinson, Captain Paul, Sergeant

Romo, Lieutenant Willis, Lieutenant Romero, and Warden Uribe claiming that Defendants

retaliated against him for filing inmate grievances against prison staff by placing him in the

Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) at Centinela State Prison. (Doc. 1, at 13-14.) Plaintiff

also claims that Defendant De La Trinidad assaulted him on the way to a staff complaint

interview, while Defendant Romero watched but did nothing to stop it and failed to report it.

(Doc. 1-1, at 13-14.) Plaintiff further claims that Defendants Diaz, Gonzalez and Chavez were

negligent when they lost or damaged his personal property while he was in the ASU. (Doc. 1, at

13-14.) 

 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s negligence claims for lost or damaged

personal property against Defendants Diaz, Gonzalez, and Chavez because he failed to exhaust

Case 3:11-cv-02318-JLS-PCL Document 18 Filed 03/21/12 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

1. These remedies need not meet federal standards, nor must they be “plain, speedy and

effective.” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citations omitted); Booth, 532 at 739-40 & n.5 (2001). The

obligation to exhaust persists as long as some remedy is available; when that is no longer the case,

the prisoner need not further pursue the grievance. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir.

2005).

2

his administrative remedies first. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff filed a statement of nonopposition to

Defendants’ motion. (Doc. 10.) Upon reviewing the Complaint, Defendants’ Motion and

Plaintiff’s Statement of Nonopposition, the Court recommends Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

be GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to

provide 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S.

516, 524 (2002). Even when a prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings,

notably monetary damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741 (2001). Similarly, exhaustion is a prerequisite for all prisoner suits regarding the

conditions of their confinement, whether they involve general circumstances or particular

episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532.1/

The PLRA requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548

U.S. 81, 83 (2006). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and

other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without

imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Id. at 90-91. Thus,

compliance with prison grievance procedures is required by the PLRA to properly exhaust. Id.

The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement cannot be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise

procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 84. “The

level of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from

Case 3:11-cv-02318-JLS-PCL Document 18 Filed 03/21/12 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

system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that

define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007).

The State of California provides its prisoners the right to appeal administratively “any

departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely

affecting their welfare.” CAL. CODE REGS. TIT. 15, § 3084.1(a). It also provides them the right to

file appeals alleging misconduct by correctional officers and officials. Id. § 3084.1(e). In order to

exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through

several levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a 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 and Rehabilitation. 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 under §

1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38.

Lastly, non-exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense which should be

brought by defendants in an unenumerated motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). A complaint may be

dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust if a prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no

exception to exhaustion applies.” Id. at 1120. A dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies is without prejudice. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120. 

B. Analysis

Defendants argue Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies with

regard to his negligence claims for personal property prior to the filing of this complaint as

mandated by § 1997e(a). (Doc. 8.) Specifically, Defendants put forth evidence of Plaintiff’s

attempted appeal to the Office of Third Level Appeals that was screened out because it did not

comply with the requirements relating to appeals. (See Foston Decl., Doc. 8-1, at 1-24.) This

appeal regarding his negligence claims against Defendants Diaz, Gonzalez, and Chavez was not

pursued further by Plaintiff to the Director’s level of review as required under the regulations.

(Id.) As such, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Defendant Diaz should

Case 3:11-cv-02318-JLS-PCL Document 18 Filed 03/21/12 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

be dismissed and that Defendants Gonzalez and Chavez should be dismissed from the case as

Plaintiff makes no other claims against them. (Doc. 8, at 7-8.) 

In this case, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent of nonopposition to Defendant’s motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s negligence claims against Defendants Diaz, Gonzalez, and Chavez. (Doc. 12.)

As Defendants have put forth evidence that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies regarding the negligence claims and Plaintiff has not put forth any evidence refuting

Defendants’ position, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s negligence claim again st Defendant

Diaz should be dismissed and that Defendants Gonzalez and Chavez should be dismissed from

the case as Plaintiff makes no other claims against them.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s negligence claims be GRANTED. The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s negligence

claim against Defendant Diaz should be dismissed without prejudice. The Court recommends

that Defendants Gonzalez and Chavez should be dismissed without prejudice from the case. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Janis

Sammartino, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of California. 

Any written objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Court

and a copy served on all parties on or before March 30, 2012. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed on or before April 9, 2012. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

raise those objections on appeal of this Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 1991). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: March 21, 2012 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:11-cv-02318-JLS-PCL Document 18 Filed 03/21/12 Page 4 of 4