Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02465/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02465-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cry
Defendant
Frederick Gatlin
Plaintiff
Nichols
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 On May 9, 2007, the court dismissed the claims against defendant Cry. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK GATLIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2465 WBS GGH P

vs. 

MR. NICHOLS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the original complaint filed November 7, 2006. 

Pending before the court is defendant’s June 8, 2007, motion to dismiss for failure

to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). For the following reasons,

the court recommends that defendant’s motion be denied.

The only defendant is Mr. Nichols. Plaintiff alleges that on November 29, 2005, 1

or November 30, 2005, he took his wheelchair to defendant Nichols for repair. Defendant

Nichols refused to issue a temporary wheelchair to plaintiff during the repairs, which took over

one month. During this time, plaintiff was forced to walk which caused him to fall down and

Case 2:06-cv-02465-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 5
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

suffer injuries. 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 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.” 

In order for California prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies, they must

proceed through several levels of appeal: 1) informal resolution, 2) formal written appeal on a

CDC 602 inmate appeal form, 3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and 

4) third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Barry v.

Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A

final decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Id. at

1237-38.

The administrative grievance procedures for disability related complaints, like

plaintiff’s, are a bit different than those for non-disability related complaints. Inmates with

disabilities are required to complete a CDC 1824 form. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3085(a). The

inmate shall then forward it to the appeals coordinator’s office. Id. If the form meets the

screening criteria set forth in Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.3, the form is logged in the appeals

log with the status of first level review. Id. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the decision, he may

appeal to the second level of review by attaching the original 1824 form. Id., subsection (b). If

the inmate is dissatisfied with the second level of review, he may appeal to the third level of

review. Id., subsection (c).

In Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001) the Supreme Court held that inmates

must exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures. 121 S. Ct. at 1825. Therefore, inmates seeking money damages must completely

exhaust their administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are

Case 2:06-cv-02465-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 5
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

exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In Woodford v. Ngo, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 2378 (2006), the Supreme Court

held that a prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise

procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal. 

On October 14, 2005, plaintiff submitted an 1824 form complaining that he had

not been provided with a wheelchair as ordered by the doctor. Complaint, Exhibit A. This

appeal, no. 05-M-2093, was granted at the first level of review with a note stating that plaintiff

had been given the wheelchair. Id. Plaintiff then appealed this response to the second level of

review in a grievance stating the wheelchair he was given was in bad condition. Id. Plaintiff

requested a new wheelchair. Id. On November 29, 2005, this appeal was granted and denied at

the second level of review. Id. As to plaintiff’s request for a wheelchair, the appeal was granted

because plaintiff had received a wheelchair. Id. As to plaintiff’s request for a wheelchair that

functioned properly, the appeal was denied because plaintiff had not presented himself to the

Clinic in order to have his wheelchair repaired. Id. Plaintiff did not file a third level appeal of

this grievance.

On December 23, 2005, plaintiff submitted a new 1824 form raising the claims

raised in the instant action, i.e. defendant Nichols took his wheelchair for repair but failed to

issue a wheelchair for plaintiff to use during the repairs. Id., Exhibit B. On January 13, 2006,

this appeal was returned to plaintiff on grounds that it was duplicative of appeal no. 05-M-2092. 

Id. 

Plaintiff then submitted the December 23, 2005, 1824 form to the Director’s Level

of review. Complaint, p. 7. On March 7, 2006, this appeal was returned to plaintiff on grounds

that it had not been completed through the second level of review. Complaint, p. 7, exhibit B. 

Plaintiff submitted two inmate appeals complaining that his earlier grievances had

not been properly processed. Complaint, Exhibit C. One of these appeals was screened out at

the informal level of review as being duplicative of 05-M-2092. Id. Plaintiff appealed both of

Case 2:06-cv-02465-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 5
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

these grievances to the Director’s Level, where they were rejected for not having been completed

through the second level of review. Id.

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies because

he did not appeal appeal no. 05-M-2092 to the third level of review. Defendants argue that

plaintiff failed to follow the proper grievance procedures by filing a duplicative appeal, i.e. the

December 23, 2005, 1824 form. In his opposition, plaintiff argues that his December 23, 2005,

1824 form was improperly screened out as duplicative of appeal no. 05-M-2092 because it raised

different issues. 

While both appeals generally raised issues regarding plaintiff’s use of a

wheelchair, they requested different relief. Appeal no. 05-M-2092 requested a wheelchair that

properly functioned. The December 23, 2005, 1824 form requested that a wheelchair be issued

to plaintiff while the malfunctioning wheelchair was being repaired. A response to the claims

raised in 05-M-2092 would not have addressed the claims raised in the December 23, 2005, 1824

form. Accordingly, the court finds that the December 23, 2005, 1824 form was improperly

screened out as duplicative of appeal no. 05-M-2092. Under these circumstances, plaintiff had

exhausted his administrative remedies when he filed this action. Cf. Underwood v. Wilson, 151

F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998) (when a prisoner has undertaken all possible appeals but the prison

authorities fail to respond within the required time period, the prisoner has exhausted

administrative remedies).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s June 8, 2007,

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies be denied.

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 twenty

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 2:06-cv-02465-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

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

shall be served and filed within ten 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: 11/29/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

gat2465.mtd

Case 2:06-cv-02465-WBS-KJN Document 15 Filed 11/29/07 Page 5 of 5