Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06182/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06182-6/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 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion 1

on November 1, 2006. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY D. KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06182-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

BE GRANTED AND THIS ACTION BE

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(Doc. 24)

OBJECTIONS DUE JUNE 20, 2007

I. Findings and Recommendations - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed

November 3, 2003, against defendants Yale, Rousseau and Marmolejo(“defendants”). Plaintiff

alleges defendants retaliated against him for participating in a group appeal challenging the double

celling of inmates.

On February 20, 2007, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b), defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the 

available administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on March 30, 2007,

and defendants filed a reply on April 9, 2007.1

B. Exhaustion Requirement

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 05/22/07 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

2

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and

prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the

prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

Exhaustion of the prison’s administrative process must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative

defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The failure to exhaust nonjudicial

administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion,

rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza v. Int’l

Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curium)). In

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court

concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal without prejudice. Id. 

C. Discussion

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process isinitiated by submitting a CDC

Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first

formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Id.

at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being appealed,

and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c).

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 05/22/07 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

Defendants argue they are entitled to dismissal of this action because plaintiff failed to

exhaust his retaliation claim. Defendants contend that plaintiff filed an untimely appeal at the third

level and filed the Complaint before he exhausted the prison administrative process. Plaintiff

opposes defendants’ motion on the ground that his screened out appeal demonstrates that he

exhausted. Plaintiff contends that screened out appeals may not be appealed and he could not move

forward with the process. 

Defendants submit evidence that plaintiff submitted inmate appeal Log # COR 03-2584 on

May 5, 2003alleging that Officer Yale issued a rules violation in retaliation for his participation in

the group appeal. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit “A.” The appeal was bypassed at the

informal level and denied at the first level in August 2003. Id. The appeal was denied at the second

level on October 22, 2003. Id. Plaintiff’s appeal was returned to him on November 18, 2003 for his

failure to submit the appeal within 15 working days. Id. at Exhibit “C.” On March 2, 2004, plaintiff

filed the appeal at the Director’s Level, which was rejected as untimely. Id. 

At the time plaintiff filed his amended complaint, it was the law of this Circuit that

exhaustion occurred when an inmate’s appeal was barred by the appeals coordinator on procedural

grounds and “no further level of appealremained in the state prison’sinternal appeals process.” Ngo

v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005). Subsequently, United States Supreme Court

reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo and held that “proper exhaustion of administrative

remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion requirement may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely

or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006)

(emphasis added). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other

critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. at 2386. 

Receipt of the decision to screen out plaintiff’s appeal did not constitute exhaustion and

thereby relieve plaintiff of his obligation to follow the proper procedure. Pursuant the Supreme

Court’s decision in Ngo, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies

as mandated by section 1997e(a).

Further, plaintiff is required to exhaust prior to filing suit. Plaintiff filed this action on

September 2, 2003, before his appeal was denied at the second level of review. Thus, plaintiff’s

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 05/22/07 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

attempts to pursue the appeal in November 2003 and March 2004, would not satisfy the exhaustion

requirement in any event, as it occurred after suit was filed. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

D. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff did not exhaust the available

administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, filed February 20, 2007, be GRANTED, and this action be

dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative

remedies. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On or before June 20,

2007, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 4