Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04641-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Casey
Defendant
Roderick Coleman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. CASEY, 

Defendant. /

No. C 09-4641 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights action

for damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Defendant has moved to dismiss under Rule

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that plaintiff did not properly

exhaust available administrative remedies. Plaintiff has filed an opposition. For the reasons

discussed below, the court will grant the motion.

BACKGROUND

A. Scope of Complaint

Coleman filed this action while he was incarcerated at San Francisco County Jail. In

his complaint, Coleman alleged that he had received a notice of rule violation ("NRV") on

June 6, 2009 for being verbally abusive toward a nurse (i.e., insulting the nurse's hairdo). On

June 7, 2009, lieutenant Casey allegedly considered the matter and found Coleman guilty of

violating jail rule # 13. That finding allegedly led to Coleman receiving a thirty-day

disciplinary lockup. 

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 21 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The court conducted an initial review under 28 U.S.C. section 1915A. The court

liberally construed the complaint, and determined that it stated a cognizable due process

claim against defendant lieutenant Casey, who allegedly conducted a disciplinary proceeding

without giving adequate notice of the hearing to Coleman and who found Coleman guilty

based on false and insufficient evidence of a violation of jail rule # 13. 

B. Administrative Exhaustion Efforts

Coleman filed only one grievance that arguably relates to the disciplinary decision. 

On June 19, 2009, he filed an inmate grievance in which he complained that "[i]nmates

constitutional rights are disregarded by Sheriff Deputies Hearing Procedure," in that the

inmates are denied several listed "rights." Complaint, Exh. 3 (errors in source). In his

grievance, Coleman did not mention the June 6 incident or the June 7 disciplinary

proceeding. 

The supervisor wrote this response to Coleman's June 19 grievance: "Coleman feels

that the deputized staff does not interview witnesses to fights. Coleman also feels that a

neutral party should be available to interview witnesses to fights and other incidents. For the

record, supervisors do interview witnesses to incidents. However, we do not have a neutral

party available on each [illegible] to immediately start [illegible]." Id. 

Coleman apparently checked the box on the form indicating he wanted to further

appeal his grievance (instead of being "satisfied with response"). The Facility Commander

responded: "In order to investigate your claims, please provide date and time of violation, a

copy of the NRV and details supporting your allegations." Id. Coleman did not respond to

the Facility Commander's request for information.

On July 7, 2009, Coleman requested the paperwork for his June 6 rule violation.

Coleman noticed that his signature had been forged on the Notice of Right to Hearing form.

See Complaint, Exh. 4. 

Coleman filed this action on September 30, 2009. 

Two weeks later, on October 16, 2009, Coleman called and left a voicemail message

for Chief Deputy Keller concerning the apparently forged signature on his Notice of Right to

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 21 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Hearing form. Keller responded that his complaint was being investigated. Coleman Decl.,

Exh. 4 (Docket 18).

DISCUSSION

"No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. section

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). Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by section 1997e(a) is mandatory. 

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted; those

remedies "need not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" 

Id. (citation omitted). Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance

proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Similarly, exhaustion is a prerequisite 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, 534 U.S. at 532. The

PLRA exhaustion provision requires "proper exhaustion" of available administrative

remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006).

Non-exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.

199, 211 (2007); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). It should be treated

as a matter of abatement and brought in an “unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than [in]

a motion for summary judgment.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citations omitted). In deciding a

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under section 1997e(a), the

court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. If

the court concludes that the inmate has not exhausted the jail’s administrative process, the

proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id. Here, defendant properly used a Rule

12(b) motion to assert nonexhaustion.

The administrative remedy process available at the San Francisco County Jail at the

relevant time is described in the Sheriff's Department written policy that provides a grievance

process to inmates to allow redress of conditions related to confinement. With regard to

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 21 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

complaints against staff, the jail's formal administrative grievance process is simple. Firstly,

the inmate completes a grievance form to file a complaint against staff, and the prisoner and

staff member attempt to resolve the grievance immediately. See Keller Decl., Exh. A, p. 4. 

Secondly, the Watch Commander logs the grievance and has five days to resolve it if it is not

immediately resolved. Thirdly, an inmate may appeal a Watch Commander's decision to a

Facility Commander, who "has 5 days to resolve and return the grievance to the prisoner." Id. 

Fourthly, if the prisoner is unsatisfied, he then appeals the grievance to the Custody Division

Commander, who has seven days to respond. (Chief Deputy Veronica Keller was the

Custody Division Commander in this case.) A Custody Division Commander's decision is

final and completes the appeal process. 

The San Francisco Sheriff's Department has no record of any potentially relevant

grievance from Coleman other than the one dated June 19, 2009. That grievance form has the

Facility Commander’s response dated July, 6, 2009, requesting the “date and time of

violation, a copy of the NRV and details supporting ... allegations.” Complaint, Exh. 3. The

Sheriff’s Department’s files and records contain no records that Coleman either provided

further details to the Facility Commander or appealed to the Custody Division Commander. 

Coleman contends that the Facility Commander was being an obstructionist by requesting

further information. However, given that the connection between the June 9, 2009 NRV and

the June 19, 2009 grievance form was not apparent, the Facility Commander’s request was a 

reasonable effort to understand the subject of Coleman's discontent. 

Coleman later contacted Chief Deputy Keller, but that communication did not concern

the subject matter of his original grievance. The original grievance alleged that inmates

subjected to discipline are deprived of their constitutional rights to investigative employees, a

fair hearing, access to witnesses, access to interpreters, and ability to question the witnesses.

Id. at 2. By contrast, his voicemail message to Chief Keller about three months later

concerned his belief that someone had forged his name on the Notice of Right to Hearing

form. Given that Coleman had not provided the information requested by the Facility

Commander, and given that this message concerned a different problem, the voicemail

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 21 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

message did not amount to an appeal of the Facility Commander's response.

Further, even if the voicemail message and the original grievance were related,

Coleman failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement because he did not contact the Chief

Deputy Commander until October 16, 2009, and that was two weeks after he filed his federal

civil rights complaint on September 30, 2009. An action must be dismissed if the prisoner did

not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts

while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). Even

assuming that the voicemail constitutes an appeal, it was too late to matter for purposes of

section 1997e(a).

Coleman did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action. The

action must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to properly exhaust available administrative

remedies is GRANTED. (Docket #9). The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The

clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2010 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 21 Filed 07/29/10 Page 5 of 5