Carroll v. Knipp et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/26/13 recommending that defendant Hientschell's motion to dismiss 22 be granted; and this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to brining suit. MOTION to DISMISS 22 referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:13-cv-0215 LKK CKD P
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WILLIAM KNIPP, et al.,
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Hientschell (defendant) is an employee of
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Mule Creek State Prison
(Mule Creek). Plaintiff alleges defendant used excessive force against plaintiff on January 24,
2013 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit.
A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit
arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d
1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides
that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title,
. . . until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a)
(also known as the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)). California state regulations provide
administrative procedures to address plaintiff’s claims. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-
3084.7. Administrative procedures generally are exhausted once a plaintiff has received a
“Director’s Level Decision,” or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims. Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5.
Plaintiff’s complaint was signed by plaintiff on January 24, 2013, the day he alleges he
was subjected to excessive force by defendant. The complaint arrived in this court on February 5,
2013. In light of these facts, plaintiff could not have exhausted administrative remedies with
respect to his claim against defendant before bringing this action. Accordingly, this action must
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendant Hientschell’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22) be granted; and
2. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies prior to bringing suit.
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 fourteen 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 Recommendations.” Any response to the
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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: November 26, 2013
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?