Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05117/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05117-11/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.

Case 1:03-cv-05117-OWW -WMW Document 59 Filed 08/27/07 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

2

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

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

Case 1:03-cv-05117-OWW -WMW Document 59 Filed 08/27/07 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

3

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 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

Case 1:03-cv-05117-OWW -WMW Document 59 Filed 08/27/07 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

4

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 23, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05117-OWW -WMW Document 59 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 4