Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00777/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00777-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan K. Richardson
Plaintiff
J. Sherritt
Defendant

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

BRYAN K. RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O J. SHERRITT,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 -777 AWI NEW (DLB) P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc.

23.) 

 Bryan K. Richardson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s original complaint filed on June 15, 2005, against Defendant Correctional Officer J.

Sherritt for excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On February 14, 2007,

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the action on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion on March 2,2007. On

March 9,2007, Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition. 

A. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sherritt used excessive force on him in violation of his

Eighth Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that he was assaulted and battered by

use of OC pepper spray on February 15, 2004. Plaintiff states that on February 15, 2004, he had

an anxiety attack which caused him to defecate on himself and on the tiers of both “B” and “C”

sections. Plaintiff then pushed the defecated matter out onto both tiers. (Complaint at 3.) 

Case 1:05-cv-00777-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 04/10/07 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

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. 1

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated 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).

2

Plaintiff states that Defendant Sherritt was assigned to clean up the defecated matter and was

angry and mad at Plaintiff for having done what he had done. Plaintiff states that Defendant then

retaliated against him by emptying a full can of pepper spray into Plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff states

that he tried to shield himself from the spray but could not because he was naked and under

management/psych care. Plaintiff concedes that he was banging and kicking on the inside of his

cell door but it was because he is medically and mentally unbalanced and thus, his behavior was

normal. Id. at 4. 

B. ANALYSIS

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

requires prisoners to 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, 1

741 (2001). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing

to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5). “Proper exhaustion[, which] demands compliance with an

agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” is required, Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S.Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006), and may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise

procedurally defective . . . appeal,” id. at 2382. Finally, exhaustion must occur prior to filing

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

Case 1:05-cv-00777-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 04/10/07 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

4ASH-04/02-0034 issued March 17, 2004. (Compl. at 11; Exh. D, Opposition.) 2

The inmate appeal is signed by Plaintiff on April 12,2004, but is marked received by inmate appeals on 3

April 15, 2004. (Sampson Decl., at ¶ 6.) 

3

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the

department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy

which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id. at

3084.1(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.” Cal. Code

Regs. tit 15, § 3084.5 (2004). 

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, 315 F.3d at 1119. 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. Id. (citing Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union,

837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)). 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. 

In this case, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

prior to initiating this suit because he did not grieve his allegations against the Defendant to any

level beyond the first level. In support, Defendant provides the Court with the declarations of N.

Grannis, Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch, and K. Sampson, Appeals Coordinator at

California Correctional Institution (“CCI:) at Tehachapi, California. 

Plaintiff was issued a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) as a result of the defecating

incident that took place on February 15, 2004. (Compl. at 11; Exh. D, Opposition.) Plaintiff did 2

not directly appeal the ruling but did file an inmate grievance on April 12, 2004, in which he 3

complained that the “stacking” of Rules Violation Reports. Plaintiff complained specifically that

Case 1:05-cv-00777-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 04/10/07 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 This document is dated May 9, 2004, at the top but it was signed by a Correctional Sergeant and Facility 4

Captain on June 9, 2004. (Compl. at 14.) 

4

an incident that happened earlier that day regarding Plaintiff’s refusal to give up his meal tray and

the defecating incident were one continuous incident and therefore, should have resulted in only

been given one RVR. (Compl. a 13; Sampson Decl. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s inmate appeal at the

informal level was granted on April 14, 2004, and one of the RVR’s was dismissed. Id. Plaintiff

remained dissatisfied and appealed to the first Formal level requesting that all RVR’s concerning

the incidents that took place on February 15, 2004, be dismissed in the interests of justice. Id. 

Plaintiff’s appeal at the first formal level was denied on June 9, 2004. (Compl. at 14; Sampson 4

Decl. at ¶ 6.) According to Mr. Sampson, CCI’s inmate appeal records, Plaintiff did not further

appeal the denial to the second level. Id. 

N. Grannis, Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch, provides that a search of the inmate

appeals submitted at the third or “Director’s” level indicates that Plaintiff did not file an inmate

appeal concerning the allegations of excessive force by Defendant Sherritt on February 15, 2004. 

(Grannis Decl., at ¶ 9.) The Court finds that Defendant has met his burden as the party moving

for dismissal on exhaustion grounds. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that

exhaustion occurred or that an exception exists. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

2003). 

Plaintiff filed his Opposition on March 2, 2007, which asserts that Plaintiff has exhausted

his administrative remedies but that Defendant has gone back into Plaintiff’s files and “‘purged’

and or threw away any evidence of Plaintiff ever having filed his grievance appeals to this issue.” 

(Opposition at 2.) In support of this allegation, Plaintiff cites to Exhibits A, B, and C of his

Opposition. The Court has examined these exhibits which consist of letters to Plaintiff from

Deputy Public Defender David L. Kelly. The letter concern the habeas corpus actions Plaintiff

filed in the Kern County Superior Court and the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The letters

indicate that Mr. Kelly sifted through certain documents contained in Plaintiff’s medical and Cfile and that some of the documents provided by Plaintiff do not match up with what he found in

Plaintiff’s prison files. While the information provided by Mr. Kelly is unsettling, these

Case 1:05-cv-00777-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 04/10/07 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

documents do not demonstrate that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to

his excessive force claim against Defendant Sherritt. 

First, the evidence provided by Defendant was taken from the prison’s institutional files

and not Plaintiff’s C-file or medical files. As stated above, both Mr. Sampson and Grannis state

in their declarations that the information provided came from information in the prison’s

computer database tracking all inmate appeals. (Grannis Decl., at ¶7; Sampson Decl. at 2.)

Thus, the fact that some of the documents Plaintiff had in his possession did not match

documents in his “C” or medical files is not evidence that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative

remedies. Nor is it evidence of an exception to the rule of exhaustion. Despite Plaintiff’s

contention that his files were tampered with such that the computer files would not reflect all of

Plaintiff’s grievances, Plaintiff fails to provide evidence that he did, in fact, grieve his allegations

to the second level or the Director’s level at the institution. 

As stated above, the evidence before the Court shows only that Plaintiff filed an informal

grievance and an appeal at the first formal level. Plaintiff did not, however, pursue his

administrative grievance with regard to his excessive force claim against Defendant Sherritt at

any further level. As stated by the Supreme Court, proper exhaustion requires compliance with

an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules. This includes using all steps that the

agency provides so that it addresses the issues on the merits. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378,

2385-86 (2006). Plaintiff’s failure to grieve his complaint at each level in the administrative

process warrants dismissal of the instant action. 

C. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and

the case DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations 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)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Case 1:05-cv-00777-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 04/10/07 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

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 10, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00777-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 04/10/07 Page 6 of 6