Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00255/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00255-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Paramore
Plaintiff
J. Ruiz
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

ANTHONY PARAMORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. RUIZ,

Defendant.

CASE No. 1:12-cv-00255-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(ECF No. 16)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

(14) DAYS

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Anthony Paramore, a former a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 23, 

2012. (ECF No. 1.) The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

against Defendant Ruiz for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth amendment. 

(ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that during a search Defendant Ruiz grabbed Plaintiff’s 

groin and forced Plaintiff onto his back. (Id.)

Defendant Ruiz has moved to dismiss the case under the unenumerated

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure exhaust administrative 

remedies. Defendant also contends Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 

Case 1:12-cv-00255-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 03/31/14 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

512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). (ECF No. 16.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 19) and Defendant did not reply. The motion is 

deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, “[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 suits relating to prison life, Porter v. 

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

The failure to exhaust in compliance with section 1997e(a) is an affirmative 

defense under which the defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence 

of exhaustion. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 

2003). The failure to exhaust is subject to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, and in 

resolving the motion, the Court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed 

issues of fact. Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012); Morton v. Hall, 599 

F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court concludes that 

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. 

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

///

Case 1:12-cv-00255-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 03/31/14 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

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant moves to dismiss based, in part, on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) administrative appeals 

process. On March 21, 2011, Plaintiff submitted an appropriate grievance about the 

excessive force. (ECF No. 16-4 at 6-7.) That grievance was given Avenal State Prison 

appeal log number 11-00397, “bypassed the first level of review and was processed as a 

staff complaint at the second level of review.” (Id. at 2.) It was partially granted at the 

second level insofar as it instigated an investigation into Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 16-2 

at 4; ECF No. 16-4 at 9-10.) However, that investigation determined that staff did not 

violate CDCR policy. (Id.) Plaintiff was then provided the following instruction:

[a]llegations 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.

(ECF No. 16-4 at 10.) On May 17, 2011 and again on August 1, 2011, Plaintiff tried 

unsuccessfully to submit his grievance to the third and final level of review. Each appeal 

attempt was “screened out because [Plaintiff] failed to submit the appeals in proper 

format . . . .” (ECF No. 16-3 at 2-3 and 5.)

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative 

grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The 

process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). In 2011, 

prisoners were required to submit appeals within thirty calendar days from the 

occurrence of the event or the decision being appealed, or upon first knowledge of the 

action or decision being appealed. Id. at § 3084.8(b) (2011). Three levels of appeal are 

Case 1:12-cv-00255-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 03/31/14 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

involved, including the first level, second level, and third level. Id. at § 3084.7 (2011).

Exhaustion of administrative remedies under the PLRA requires that the prisoner 

complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural 

rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199–1201. An 

untimely or otherwise procedurally defective appeal will not satisfy the exhaustion 

requirement. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 84. Exhaustion does not always require pursuit of 

an appeal through the Director's Level of Review. What is required to satisfy exhaustion 

is a fact specific inquiry, and may be dependent upon prison officials' response to the 

appeal. See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (improper reasons for 

screening inmate's appeal is equitable exception to exhaustion); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 

F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing examples of exceptions to exhaustion 

requirement from other circuits); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935–36 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(“[E]ntirely pointless exhaustion” not required).

The materials provided by Defendant indicate that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s attempts to submit his 

appeals to the final level of review were screened out because they were not formatted 

properly. A defendant's burden of establishing an inmate's failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies has been characterized by the Ninth Circuit as “very low.” 

Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2012). The defendant need only show the 

existence of a grievance procedure the plaintiff did not use. Id. (citing Hilao v. Estate of 

Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 778 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Plaintiff’s opposition does not address the merits of Defendant’s exhaustion 

argument. Instead, in a short statement, Plaintiff reaffirms the assertion that Defendant 

violated his rights and he requests relief. (ECF No. 19.) 

Case 1:12-cv-00255-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 03/31/14 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

Plaintiff was required to pursue his inmate appeal through the final level of review. 

To be excused from the exhaustion requirement, an inmate must have “made every 

effort to make full use of the prison grievance process, but was stymied by the error [of 

prison officials].” Nunez, 591 F.3d at 1226. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to 

exhaust was the result of his own mistake. Plaintiff offers no rebuttal.

Nothing filed by Plaintiff raises any question about Defendant’s characterization of 

his administrative appeals history. Defendant has satisfied his burden of demonstrating 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not shown that he 

complied with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements, nor has he shown why he should be 

exempt from those requirements. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90–91 (“Proper exhaustion 

demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules 

because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly 

structure on the course of its proceedings.”). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be 

granted and this action dismissed, without prejudice.1

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) be granted and that 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) 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 "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

 

1

 Having found Plaintiff's claim administratively unexhausted, the Court declines to address Defendant's 

alternate grounds for dismissal.

Case 1:12-cv-00255-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 03/31/14 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

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00255-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 03/31/14 Page 6 of 6