Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01209/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01209-7/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

KIM DAVIS MCADOO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-03-1209 FCD KJM P

vs.

ED ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that defendants caused

plaintiff to become infected with chicken pox while plaintiff was housed at California

Correctional Center in Susanville. Defendants Alameida, Castro and Hahn have filed a motion

asking that this case be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies with

respect to his claims prior to filing suit. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “Conditions of

confinement” subject to exhaustion have been defined broadly as “the effects of actions by

government officials on the lives of persons confined in prisons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2); Smith

Case 2:03-cv-01209-FCD-KJM Document 27 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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

v. Zachary, 255 F.3d 446, 449 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Lawrence v. Goord, 304 F.3d 198, 200

(2d Cir. 2002). Proper exhaustion of available remedies is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532

U.S. 731, 741 (2001); Woodford v. Ngo, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 2378 (2006) (addressing

timeliness aspect of proper exhaustion). Exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation will

not save an action from dismissal. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). 

California prison regulations provide administrative procedures in the form of one

informal and three formal levels of review to address plaintiff’s claims. See Cal. Code Regs.

tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.7. Administrative procedures generally are exhausted once a plaintiff has

received a “Director’s Level Decision,” or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5.

To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a grievance must alert prison officials to

the claims the plaintiff has included in the complaint. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25

(2002) (purpose of exhaustion requirement is to give officials “time and opportunity to address

complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case”); Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d

1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2000) (“1997e(a) requires that a prisoner provide as much relevant

information as he reasonably can in the administrative grievance process,” but does not require

that he do more than that). 

A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing

suit arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). In

deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, the court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. Defendants bear the

burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. Id. at 1119.

Defendants present evidence with their motion to dismiss indicating plaintiff has

not exhausted administrative remedies with respect to the claims remaining before this court. 

Plaintiff does not dispute that he did not exhaust administrative remedies. Rather, plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-01209-FCD-KJM Document 27 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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

asserts that this case is not a “prison conditions” case, so he should not be required to exhaust. 

However, the Supreme Court has held that the exhaustion requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a) 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, 534 U.S. at 532. Because the allegations found in plaintiff’s complaint arise out

of a time while plaintiff, as now, was in prison and are directed at prison employees, plaintiff’s

complaint concerns “prison life.” Plaintiff is not exempt from the exhaustion requirement found

in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Alameida, Castro and Hahn on April

5, 2006 be granted; and

2. This case be dismissed. 

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

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: September 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

mcad1209.57

Case 2:03-cv-01209-FCD-KJM Document 27 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3