Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00729/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00729-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Alexander
Defendant
Heyward
Defendant
Larry Glen Robinson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

 Correctional Officer S. Alexander is the sole defendant upon whom service was 1

authorized by the court. In his second amended complaint filed August 28, 2007, plaintiff also

named an officer Heyward as a defendant but the court did not authorize service on that

individual because of the absence of any factual allegations in the second amended complaint

relating to him. See Order filed October 4, 2007. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY GLEN ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0729 JAM DAD P

vs.

HEYWARD, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action due to

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Following the court’s June 26, 2008 order

that he file his opposition to the pending motion or show cause why sanctions should not be

imposed, plaintiff filed his response.

1

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00729-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 07/24/08 Page 1 of 6
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

I. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with

respect to his claim that on January 12, 2007, defendant Alexander refused to move plaintiff from

an outside holding cell which resulted in plaintiff suffering from hypothermia. In this regard,

defendant acknowledges that plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on January 21, 2007,

regarding the January 12 incident. (Mot. to Dismiss (MTD), O’Brian Decl., Ex. A.) That appeal,

which was assigned log number 07-00266, was partially granted at the first level of review on

March 6, 2007. (Id., O’Brian Decl., Ex. B.) The first level response indicated that the appeal

was processed as a staff complaint and that an inquiry was conducted. The results of the inquiry,

however, were deemed confidential because it involved personnel matters. (Id.) Plaintiff was

provided the following information regarding the appeals process at that time:

Allegations of staff misconduct do not limit or restrict the

availability of further relief via the inmate appeals process. If you

wish to appeal the decision, you must submit your staff complaint

appeal through all levels of appeal review up to, and including, the

Director’s Level of Review. Once a decision has been rendered at

the Director’s Level of Review, your administrative remedies will

be considered exhausted. 

(Id.) 

Defendant contends that despite these instructions plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies by seeking a second or third level review. In support of that contention

the Appeals Coordinator at California State Prison - Sacramento has submitted a declaration and

a copy of the computer printout from the Inmate Appeals Tracking System showing that plaintiff

did not appeal his grievance, log number 07-00266, to the second level of review. (Id., O’Brian

Decl. at 2, Ex. C.) In addition, N. Grannis, the Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, has provided a declaration stating that

he searched the computer database for grievances submitted by plaintiff, and there is no record

that plaintiff filed a third-level appeal concerning the incident at issue in this case. (Id., Grannis

Decl. at 2, Ex. A.) Since plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies at the third level of

Case 2:07-cv-00729-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 07/24/08 Page 2 of 6
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

review (Director’s level), defendant argues that the second amended complaint must be

dismissed. (MTD at 3-4.)

II. Plaintiff’s Response

Plaintiff asserts that in the interest of justice, his second amended complaint

should not be dismissed because his first and second amended complaints show that his due

process rights were violated. Plaintiff also argues that his administrative remedies were

exhausted when defendant “and his superiors fail[ed] to acknowledge the law and their own

policy which according to the CCR Title 15, 3271 [sic] states, every employee, regardless of his

or her assignment, is responsible for the safety of the inmate(s) confined in the institutions of the

department.” (Pl.’s Response at 1.) Plaintiff also contends that he is “at a disadvantage, due to

my placement in administrative segregation” and requests the appointment of counsel. (Id. at 2.)

III. The Exhaustion Requirement

By the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), Congress provided that

[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under

section 1983 of this title, 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 exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about prison life,

whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege

excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

The Supreme Court has ruled that under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), exhaustion of

prison administrative procedures is mandated regardless of the relief offered through such

procedures. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The Court has also cautioned against

reading futility or other exceptions into the statutory exhaustion requirement. Id. at 741 n.6. 

Because proper exhaustion is necessary, a prisoner cannot satisfy the PLRA exhaustion

requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or

appeal. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006). 

Case 2:07-cv-00729-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 07/24/08 Page 3 of 6
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

 Plaintiff was notified of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss brought 2

pursuant to non-enumerated Rule 12(b) on November 5, 2007. (Order filed Nov. 5, 2007 at 3-4.)

4

In California, prisoners may appeal “any departmental decision, action, condition,

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

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). Most appeals progress from an informal review through three formal

levels of review. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. A decision at the third formal level, also

referred to as the Director’s level, is not appealable and will conclude a prisoner’s administrative

remedy. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1(a) and 3084.5(e)(2). A California prisoner is

required to submit an inmate appeal at the appropriate level and proceed to the highest level of

review available before filing suit. Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2005);

Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2002).

The PLRA exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional but rather creates an

affirmative defense that a defendant may raise in a non-enumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Jones v.

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, ___, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007) (“[I]nmates are not required to specially

plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.”); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117-

19 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). The defendant

bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt , 315 F.3d at 1119. “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.” Id. “I[f] the district court looks beyond

the pleadings to a factual record in deciding the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust–a

procedure closely analogous to summary judgment – then the court must assure that [the

prisoner] has fair notice of his opportunity to develop a record.” Id. at 1120 n.14. When the 2

district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies on a claim,

“the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120. See also Lira v.

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1212 (2007). 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00729-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 07/24/08 Page 4 of 6
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

 In light of this conclusion, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will be 3

denied.

5

On the other hand, “if a complaint contains both good and bad claims, the court proceeds with

the good and leaves the bad.” Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 924. 

IV. Analysis

As the court noted above, the exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits

about prison life. Accordingly, exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing suit is

required in this case, where plaintiff has alleged that the defendant disregarded his health by

keeping him in an outdoor holding cell. Here, the record before the court reveals that plaintiff

did not proceed beyond the first level of the prison administrative grievance process even though

he was specifically advised in the first level response that he had to pursue his grievance through

the Director’s level before his administrative remedies would be considered exhausted. (See

MTD, O’Brian Decl., Ex. B.) Because the record clearly establishes that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action, the motion to dismiss should be

granted and this action be dismissed without prejudice.

3

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 8, 2008 request for

the appointment of counsel, is denied.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Alexander’s January 11, 2008 motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. No. 21), be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

Case 2:07-cv-00729-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 07/24/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within five days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: July 24, 2008.

DAD:4

robi0729.mtd

Case 2:07-cv-00729-JAM-DAD Document 26 Filed 07/24/08 Page 6 of 6