Quezada v. Lindsey et al

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Regarding Exhaustion, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/2/11. Thirty Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ALVARO QUEZADA,

1:10-cv-01402-AWI-GBC (PC)

10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING
EXHAUSTION

Plaintiff,
11
v.

(Doc. 1)

12
R. LINDSEY, et al.,
13
14

Defendants.
/

15
16

I. Factual and Procedural Background

17

Alvaro Quezada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed his

19

original complaint. On page three of the form complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the Appeal’s

20

Coordinator has purposefully obstructed Plaintiff’s ability to exhaust administrative remedies and

21

placed Plaintiff’s appeal “in limbo.” (Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff directs the Court to attachments of the

22

complaint to explain why his administrative remedies have not been exhausted. (Doc. 1 at 3).

23

Attached to Plaintiff’s complaint, on page 29, there is a letter dated February 6, 2009, from the

24

Appeals Coordinator stating that Plaintiff failed to timely submit the appeal as per Rule CCR

25

3084.6(c). (Doc. 1 at 29).

26

II. Exhaustion Requirement

27

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, "[n]o action shall be brought with

28

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
1

1

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

2

available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

3

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney

4

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court must dismiss a case without

5

prejudice even when there is exhaustion while the suit is pending. Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164,

6

1170 (9th Cir. 2005).

7

Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner. Booth v. Churner, 532

8

U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001). A prisoner must “must use all steps the prison holds out,

9

enabling the prison to reach the merits of the issue.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.

10

2009); see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005). A prisoner's concession to

11

non-exhaustion is valid grounds for dismissal so long as no exception to exhaustion applies. 42

12

U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003).

13

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the California Department of Corrections and

14

Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit.

15

15 § 3084.1 (2008). The process is initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a).

16

Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first formal level, second formal

17

level, and third formal level, also known as the "Director's Level." Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must

18

be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by

19

submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id.

20

at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). Where a prisoner asks for accommodation for an ADA disability, the filing

21

of the “request for accommodation form” along with completion of the appeal process thereafter

22

satisfies PLRA exhaustion. Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.2005).

23

In order to satisfy section 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use the available

24

process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378,

25

2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and

26

. . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 918-19 (citing Porter, 435

27

U.S. at 524). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet

28

federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (quoting
2

1

Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5).

2

The Court may review exhibits attached to the complaint that may contradict Plaintiff’s

3

assertions in the complaint. Tyler v. Cuomo, 236 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000); Durning v. First

4

Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). Attached to Plaintiff’s complaint, is a letter

5

dated February 6, 2009, from the Appeals Coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison which states that:

6

There has been too great a TIME LAPSE between when the action or decision
occurred and when you filed your appeal with no explanation of why you did not or
could not file in a timely fashion. Time limits expired per CCR 3084.6(c).
Therefore, if you would like to pursue this matter further, you must submit an
explanation and supporting documentation explaining why you did not or cuold not
file your appeal timely.

7
8
9

(Doc. 1 at 29). The Supreme Court has held that the exhaustion requirement demands “proper”
10
exhaustion. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 90-91 (2006). “To ‘proper[ly]’ exhaust, a prisoner
11
must comply ‘with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative
12
system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its
13
proceedings.’” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548
14

U.S. 81, 90-91 ).1

15
In this instance, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to correct the error or seek reversal of the
16
screening result after receiving the screening notice. Plaintiff does not attach any documentation that
17
would demonstrate that he attempted to address the shortcomings highlighted in the administrative
18
screening notice. Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with the agency’s procedural requirements,
19
Plaintiff has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
20
84, 90-91.
21
22
III.

Conclusion and Order

23
Because it appears that Plaintiff has not completed the grievance process, the Court
24
HEREBY ORDERS:
25
1.

Plaintiff SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the action should not be dismissed for

26
27
28

1

The Court also takes judicial notice of another case by the same Plaintiff (Quezada v. Gricewich,
1:06-cv-01088-OW W -GBC (PC)) wherein the Court recommended dismissal due to Plaintiff’s failure to follow
directions in order to properly exhaust administrative remedies. Quezada v. Gricewich, 1:06-cv-01088 at Doc. 68.

3

1

failure to exhaust administrative remedies withing thirty (30) days of the date of

2

service of this order.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
0jh02o

6

May 2, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4