Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05117/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05117-10/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

GARY DRUMMONDS,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 5117 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 RE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC 47)

SERGEANT GRIFFIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Pending before the court is Defendant Raymond’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

claim that he failed to provide religious guidance to Plaintiff and retaliated against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has opposed the motion.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Case 1:03-cv-05117-OWW -WMW Document 58 Filed 08/27/07 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

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States. . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution. . . shall be liable to the party injured in an

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 7 of the The Prison Litigation Reform Act was amended to read as

follows: 

(a) APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. No action shall

be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1979 of the

Revised Statutes of the United States (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). In Booth v. Churner,532 U.S. 731 (2001). The

Supreme Court, in addressing the question of whether a prisoner need exhaust available

remedies when monetary damages are unavailable, held that “Congress has mandated

exhaustion clearly enough, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures.” Id. at 1821. In order to bring his claim in federal court, plaintiff must

completely exhaust his available administrative remedies.

In California, there are four levels of review - informal level, first formal level,

second formal level, and third formal level. The third formal level constitutes the

Director’s decision on appeal. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.5(e)(2). 

Defendant Raymond argues that although Plaintiff did exhaust this claim at the

Director’s Level of Review, he did not do so until November 18, 2003, after this action was

filed. In support of his motion, Defendant Raymond attaches the declaration of N.

Grannis, the Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch. This declaration indicates that:

As of January 28, 2003, Inmate Gary Drummonds, (K-75084),

had not obtained a third-level (Director’s level) review of an

appeal concerning his claim that Native American Spiritual

Advisor, M. Raymond, denied him religious services and

Case 1:03-cv-05117-OWW -WMW Document 58 Filed 08/27/07 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

retaliated against him.

A review of the Inmate Appeals Branch records reveals that

Plaintiff has filed one appeal that was accepted for review by

our office concerning his claim that Native American Spiritual

Advisor, M. Raymond, denied him religious services and

retaliated against him. This appeal is log number CSATF-SP

03-02387. Plaintiff obtained a Director’s level review of this

claim on Novembe 18, 2003. A true and correct copy of the

appeal is included with this declaration as Attachment A.

In his opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s assertion that he obtained a

Director’s level review after he filed this action. Plaintiff contends that any delay was no

fault of his own. The law on this matter is clear, however. The Court of Appeals has held

that District Courts are required under Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to dismiss

actions without prejudice where prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to

filing suit but was in process of doing so when motion to dismiss was filed. McKinney v. 

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion to

dismiss be granted, and Plaintiff’s claim regarding religious services and retaliation by M.

Raymond be dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to

filing suit.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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).IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05117-OWW -WMW Document 58 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 3