Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01848-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Lopez
Defendant
Darnell Pillors
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARNELL PILLORS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LOPEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT BE 

GRANTED IN PART AND THAT THE CASE BE 

CLOSED

(ECF NO. 18)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Darnell Pillors (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes an attendant state 

law claim for negligence. On February 5, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 14). The Court found that the First Amended Complaint stated a claim 

against defendant J. Lopez (“Defendant”) for violation of the Eighth Amendment by deliberately 

disregarding a substantial risk to Plaintiff, as well as a claim for negligence. (Id. at p. 8). The 

Court noted that Plaintiff may have failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, but decided to 

allow the case to proceed, stating that it would “reexamine this issue if raised by Defendant at a 

later time.” (Id. at p. 7). On June 7, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. 

(ECF No. 18). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is now before the Court.

\\\

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 12/08/16 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

27

28

2

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

On page two of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that there is an inmate 

appeal or administrative remedy process available at his institution, that he has filed an appeal or 

grievance concerning all of the facts contained in his complaint, and that he has not completed the 

grievance process that was available to him at his institution. (ECF No. 6, p. 2). When asked to 

explain why he did not complete the grievance process, Plaintiff states: “I was not aware of 

necessity that I separately pursue administrative relief on inmate appeal. I don’t have any legal 

comprehension nor legal sophistication. When Inmate Hicks wrote up the paper and said all the 

rest of us need to do is sign on as class members on his complaint, I thought he knew what he was 

doing. Now I’m getting help from prison library inmate clerks, who at least seem like they know 

what they’re doing. I have since initiated (and am still pursuing) an appeal.” (Id.)

III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant moves to dismiss both the § 1983 claim and the state law negligence claim. As 

to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies based on the face of the First Amended Complaint, because Plaintiff admitted that he is 

still in the process of exhausting his administrative remedies. As to Plaintiff’s state law claim for 

negligence, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to allege compliance, or an excuse for 

noncompliance, with the Government Claims Act.

Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.1

A. Legal Standards

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all allegations of material fact in 

the complaint as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex 

Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court must also construe the alleged facts in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, overruled on other 

 

1 On June 15, 2016, the Court sent Plaintiff the required warning regarding how to oppose a motion 

to dismiss for failure to exhaust. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to dismiss, so on July 26, 

2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF 

No. 20). This order was returned as undeliverable, because Plaintiff was released on parole. Plaintiff was given until 

October 11, 2016, to file a notice of change of address. Plaintiff failed to file a notice of change of address by the 

deadline, and still has not filed a notice of change of address.

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 12/08/16 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

27

28

3

grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th 

Cir.1994) (per curiam). All ambiguities or doubts must also be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. 

See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). In addition, pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972).

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides that

“[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).

Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless 

of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the 

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 

U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

As the U.S. Supreme Court recently explained in Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1856 

(June 6, 2016) regarding the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement:

[T]hat language is ‘mandatory’: An inmate ‘shall’ bring ‘no action’ (or said more 

conversationally, may not bring any action) absent exhaustion of available administrative 

remedies. . . . [T]hat edict contains one significant qualifier: the remedies must indeed be

‘available’ to the prisoner. But aside from that exception, the PLRA’s text suggests no 

limits on an inmate’s obligation to exhaust—irrespective of any ‘special circumstances.’

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Accordingly, an inmate is required to exhaust 

those, but only those, grievance procedures that are ‘capable of use’ to obtain ‘some relief for the 

action complained of.’ Id. at 1859 (quoting Booth, 532 at 738 (2001)).

B. Discussion

At the outset, the Court notes that because “failure to exhaust under the PLRA is an 

affirmative defense the defendant must plead and prove,” it is generally not appropriate to raise 

this issue in a motion to dismiss. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub 

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 12/08/16 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

27

28

4

nom. Scott v. Albino, 135 S. Ct. 403 (2014) (internal quotation and citation omitted). However, 

defendants are allowed to raise the issue in a motion to dismiss “[i]n the rare event that a failure 

to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint....” Id. Here, Defendant is arguing failure to 

exhaust based on the face of the complaint. (ECF No. 18-1, p. 3). Therefore, a motion to dismiss 

on this ground is appropriate.

Next, the Court turns to whether Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies with 

respect to his § 1983 claim. Relying only on the face of the complaint, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, which were available to him. Plaintiff 

admitted that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies as of the date of filing the 

complaint. (ECF No. 6, p. 2). When asked to explain why, Plaintiff states that he did not know 

he had to separately pursue administrative remedies, and that, at the time of filing the First 

Amended Complaint, he was still utilizing the inmate grievance process. The fact that Plaintiff 

stated that there is an inmate appeal or administrative remedy process available at his institution, 

combined with the fact that Plaintiff began utilizing that process, indicates that there was an 

administrative remedy available to Plaintiff. While Plaintiff states that he did not know about 

need to pursue an administrative remedy, this is not a viable defense under the PLRA.

2

 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. 

Therefore, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant for violation 

of the Eighth Amendment be dismissed.

As to Plaintiff’s claim for negligence, the Court need not reach the issue of compliance 

with the Government Claims Act. When the Court decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s state law claim, it noted that “[t]he Supreme Court has cautioned that ‘if the 

federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.’ United 

Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).” (ECF No. 14, p. 6). See also 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) (“[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

 

2 The Court notes that this analysis may have been different if there was any indication that

Plaintiff did not know about the administrative remedies because of something that Defendant or the Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation did, or failed to do. If the process was somehow hidden from Plaintiff, it may not

have been “available.” However, here, it appears that Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies was at 

least in part because he relied on the advice of Inmate Hicks.

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 12/08/16 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

27

28

5

a claim under subsection(a) if--the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 

original jurisdiction”). As Plaintiff only has one federal claim, and as the Court has found that 

that claim should be dismissed for failure to exhaust, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s 

state law negligence claim be dismissed as well.

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court recommends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted in part. As 

to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant for violation of the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff 

failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing the complaint. Accordingly, that 

claim should be dismissed without prejudice.3 

As there are no other federal claims, Plaintiff’s state law claim for negligence should be 

dismissed without prejudice as well. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED IN PART;

2) Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant for violation of the Eighth Amendment

be DISMISSED without prejudice; 

3) Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim against Defendant be DISMISSED without 

prejudice; and

4) The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

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

Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within 

thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of 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 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 

reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the 

objections. 

\\\

 

3 Dismissal without prejudice is required when there is no presuit exhaustion. McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002)

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 12/08/16 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

27

28

6

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 

in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 6