Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02184/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02184-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY RASHAD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2184-MMA (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 33]

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Anthony Rashad Johnson, proceeding pro se, initiated this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for purported violations of his civil rights while

incarcerated at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. 

Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Complaint, which Defendants move to dismiss

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). See Doc. Nos. 24, 33. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to

filing suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The motion was set for hearing on

January 28, 2013, and a briefing schedule was issued in accordance therewith. See

Doc. No. 34. The December 13, 2012 Notice and Order setting the hearing on the

motion was mailed to Plaintiff at his record address. On December 26, 2012, the

mail was returned as undeliverable. See Doc. No. 35. In consideration thereof, the

Court entered a minute order vacating the previously scheduled motion hearing, and

- 1 - 10cv2184

Case 3:10-cv-02184-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 03/13/13 Page 1 of 5
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

issued another Notice of Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss with an amended

briefing schedule. See Doc. No. 36. Both court documents were mailed to Plaintiff

at his record address. Approximately one month later, both documents were

returned as undeliverable. See Doc. Nos. 37, 38. To date, Plaintiff has not opposed

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, nor has he filed any document in this action since

April 12, 2012. See Doc. No. 31. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES this action in its entirety without

prejudice. 

DISCUSSION

1. Dismissal for Failure to Respond

Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. The

motion has been pending for four months. The Ninth Circuit has held a district court

may properly grant an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where

the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to

respond. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (providing

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants’

motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to

the motion but failed to do so). Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides: “If an opposing

party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that

failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for

ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the option of granting Defendants’

motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and it chooses to do so. 

Generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See, e.g.,

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a case

cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits when the plaintiff fails to

defend his or her complaint against a Rule 12(b) motion. Thus, this policy lends

little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition

on the merits but whose conduct impedes or completely prevents progress in that

- 2 - 10cv2184

Case 3:10-cv-02184-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 03/13/13 Page 2 of 5
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

direction. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Furthermore, as noted above, all mail sent to Plaintiff in the last three months 

has been returned as undeliverable. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.11.b, “[a] party

proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current

address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff’s last

designated address is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify

the court and opposing parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff’s current

address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” 

See also CIV. L.R. 41.1.b (“Failure to comply with the provisions of the local rules

of this court may also be grounds for dismissal under this rule.”). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss

will be construed as a consent to the dismissal of this action. Also, because Plaintiff

has failed to notify the Court of his change of address, despite the Court’s rule

requiring him to do so, his action is subject to dismissal pursuant to Civil Local Rule

41.1.b. 

2. Dismissal for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to initiating this action. Pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner

may not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

unless all available administrative remedies are exhausted. See Roles v. Maddox,

439 F.3d 1016, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006). Exhaustion is mandated “regardless of the

relief offered through administrative procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

741 (2001). It is required in all inmate suits regarding prison life. Porter v. Nussle,

534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002).

“In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies,

the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). “A prisoner’s concession to

- 3 - 10cv2184

Case 3:10-cv-02184-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 03/13/13 Page 3 of 5
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

nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal so long as no exception to exhaustion

applies.” Id. at 1120. The proper remedy when a “prisoner has not exhausted

nonjudicial remedies . . . is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Id.; see also

Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005).

Defendants demonstrate sufficiently that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies with respect to the claims in his Second Amended

Complaint. According to the Ramirez Declaration submitted in support of

Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff filed two inmate appeals during the relevant time

period while incarcerated at R. J. Donovan. However, neither appeal concerned the

allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. See Ramirez Decl’n ¶ 7. With

respect to Plaintiff’s claim that he tried to file an inmate grievance but Defendant

Pimentel prevented him from doing so, Defendant Pimentel has provided a

declaration in which he swears under oath that he did not improperly dispose of any

of Plaintiff’s inmate appeals, nor did he otherwise attempt to prevent Plaintiff from

filing any inmate grievance. See Pimentel Decl’n ¶ 4. Furthermore, according to

Ramirez, Plaintiff had the opportunity to file an appeal against Pimentel without

Pimentel knowing about the appeal, or having access to the appeal so that it could be

destroyed. See Ramirez Decl’n ¶ 10.

In sum, Defendants have shown that the inmate grievance system was made

available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff in fact used the system to file two unrelated

grievances. However, Plaintiff appears to have not availed himself of that system as

to the claims contained in his Second Amended Complaint. As such, Plaintiff has

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and his claims are subject to dismissal

without prejudice. 

///

///

///

///

- 4 - 10cv2184

Case 3:10-cv-02184-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 03/13/13 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and

DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is ordered to close

the case file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 5 - 10cv2184

Case 3:10-cv-02184-MMA-MDD Document 39 Filed 03/13/13 Page 5 of 5