Rollings v. Harrington
Filing
21
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 15 be Granted, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/1/11. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
ALFRED ROLLINGS,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01541-LJO-SKO PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS BE GRANTED
v.
WARDEN HARRINGTON,
12
(Doc. 15)
Defendant.
THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
/
13
14
15
16
Findings and Recommendations Addressing Motion to Dismiss
I.
Procedural History
17
Plaintiff Alfred Rollings, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 31, 2009. Pursuant to the Court’s
19
screening order filed on January 28, 2011, this action is proceeding against Defendant Harrington
20
on Plaintiff’s claim that while he was housed at Kern Valley State Prison, he was exposed to water
21
contaminated with arsenic, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United
22
States Constitution.
23
On May 9, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. 42 U.S.C. §
24
1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). In response, Plaintiff filed a motion on June 10, 2011, seeking to
25
stay this action pending exhaustion. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a stay on June 15, 2011,
26
and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within thirty days.
27
Plaintiff did not comply with or otherwise response to the order and Defendant’s motion is deemed
28
1
1
submitted.1 Local Rule 230(l). For the reason that follows, the Court recommends that Defendant’s
2
motion be granted.
3
II.
Legal Standard
4
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with
5
respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
6
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are
7
available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available
8
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19
9
(2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required
10
regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process,
11
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1825 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement
12
applies to all suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992
13
(2002).
14
The failure to exhaust in compliance with section 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense under
15
which the defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 549
16
U.S. at 216; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The failure to exhaust is
17
subject to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, and in resolving the motion, the Court may look
18
beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.
19
2010); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust,
20
the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Jones, 549 U.S. at 223-24; Lira v. Herrrera, 427
21
F.3d 1164, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2005).
22
III.
Discussion
23
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance
24
system for prisoner complaints, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (West 2011), and the process is
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to
exhaust in an order filed on March 4, 2011. W yatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 111.)
2
1
initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602 (Inmate/Parolee Appeal), id. at § 3084.2(a).2 In order to
2
satisfy section 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their
3
claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006); McKinney,
4
311 F.3d at 1199-1201.
5
Defendant contends that there is no evidence Plaintiff filed an appeal grieving his claim that
6
he was exposed to contaminated water. In support of his motion, Defendant submits evidence that
7
there is no record of an appeal on this issue at the institutional level or at the final level of appeal in
8
Sacramento. (Doc. 15, Motion, Tarnoff Dec., ¶7 & Foston Dec., ¶5.) Plaintiff filed two appeals
9
while at Kern Valley State Prison, but both appeals related to property issues. (Tarnoff Dec., ¶6.)
10
Defendant has met his burden as the moving party by demonstrating the absence of any
11
evidence that exhaustion occurred, Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119, and the burden therefore shifts to
12
Plaintiff to produce evidence demonstrating either exhaustion or the existence of circumstances
13
excusing exhaustion, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-23 (9th Cir. 2010); Nunez v. Duncan, 591
14
F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action was denied and Plaintiff failed
15
to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition thereafter. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled
16
to dismissal based on Plaintiff’s failure exhaust his administrative remedies.
17
IV.
Recommendation
18
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion to
19
dismiss, filed May 9, 2011, be GRANTED and this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for
20
failure to exhaust. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
21
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
22
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)
23
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written
24
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
25
Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
26
27
28
2
Emergency changes to the regulations became effective on January 28, 2011, but the availability of an
administrative process for grieving conditions of confinement and the requirement that inmates file an appeal form to
initiate the process remain unchanged.
3
1
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
2
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
ie14hj
August 1, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?