Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05823/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05823-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL LOPEZ,

Plaintiff, CV F 02 5823 LJO WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & 

 RECOMMENDATIONS (#28)

C/O BURCH, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72-302. 

 On December 28, 2004, findings and recommendations were entered,

recommending dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections within thirty days. On

February 10, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

73-305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Plaintiff is proceeding against Correctional Officers Burch and Smith on a claim

of excessive force. Plaintiff alleges a single incident of excessive force in August of 2000. 

Plaintiff’s specific allegations are that on August 27, 2000, while waiting to be transferred back

to the Substance Abuse Treatment from the Acute Care Hospital at CSP Corcoran, Plaintiff (in a

Case 1:02-cv-05823-LJO -WMW Document 34 Filed 03/16/07 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

holding cage), asked C/O Burch when he would be returned. Burch allegedly laughed at

Plaintiff, and told Plaintiff that he should only ask questions with respect. C/O Richie came to

the holding cage and placed Plaintiff in mechanical restraints. 

C/O Burch directed Richie to bring Plaintiff to another room. Plaintiff entered the

room and sat down. Plaintiff alleges that Burch “grab me and throw me to the wall and grab my

arms violently twisted trying to break them, then he grabbed by face and throat area squeezed out

throat and violently twisted my face causing pain to my jaw with both sides...” Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants Smith and Richie observed this conduct, yet failed to intervene. Plaintiff alleges

that this cause pain in his throat, and he could not “eat or chew to good.” 

Defendants Burch and Richie filed a motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires

Plaintiff to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Defendants Burch

and Richie to dismiss on the ground that, though Plaintiff did file an inmate grievance, he failed

to refer to the conduct of Defendant Richie. Defendants refer to page 13 of their Exhibit A. 

Defendants note that Plaintiff failed to mention Correctional Officer Richie. Page 9 of

Defendants’ Exhibit A is a copy of the Director’s Level Appeal Decision. The Director’s Level

Decision states Plaintiff’s case as follows:

It is the appellant’s position that Correctional Officer (C/O) Burch,

California State Prison, Corcoran (COR), used excessive force on

him on August 23, 2000. He states that CO Burch was angry with

him following a verbal exchange. COs Richie and Smith were

acting as lookouts while CO Burch threw him to the wall while in

restraints, grabbed his arms and violently twisted them in an effort

to break them. CO Burch grabbed his face and throat and

squeezed, causing pain to his jaw. CO Burch called him a “piece

of (expletive deleted).” He states that he suffered pain in his

throat, and is unable to each and chew well.

Most recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. , (January

22, 2007), in addressing a similar argument, held that the level of detail necessary in a grievance 

Case 1:02-cv-05823-LJO -WMW Document 34 Filed 03/16/07 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

is defined by the prison’s requirements and not the PLRA. Specifically, the court held that

compliance with prison grievance procedures is all that is required by the PLRA to properly

exhaust. Id. The court held that in the absence of a prison grievance procedure mandating the

naming of each individual, the Sixth Circuit’s rule imposing such a prerequisite to proper

exhaustion is unwarranted.

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff properly exhausted. This lawsuit is

challenging a single incident of excessive force. That incident is at issue in Plaintiff’s grievance. 

Further, Plaintiff names Defendants Burch, Richie and Smith. Title 15, section 3084.1 of the

California Administrative Code allows for appeal of any “departmental decision, action,

condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.”

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the

incident at issue in this lawsuit.

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 28, 2004, are

vacated; and

2. The parties are directed to file a status report. Plaintiff’s status report is due

filed within thirty days of the date of service of this order. Defendants’ status report is due filed

thirty days after the date of service of Plaintiff’s status report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05823-LJO -WMW Document 34 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 3