Smith v. Nevens et al

Filing 37

ORDER Granting 27 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/25/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 11 WILLIE T. SMITH, #91949 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 DWIGHT W. NEVENS, et al., 15 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 2:10-cv-01415-JCM-RJJ ORDER 16 17 Presently before the court is defendants Jennifer Nash’s, Dwight W. Nevens’, Sergeant 18 Provencal’s, and correctional officer Starling’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. #27). The plaintiff has 19 responded (doc. #29), and the defendants have replied (doc. #32). Defendant correctional officer Avalos 20 has also filed a joinder to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. #36). 21 The defendant filed the instant prisoner civil rights action on December 16, 2010 (doc. #5). 22 Thereafter, the court screened the complaint, finding that the plaintiff had stated a claim for retaliation 23 in count one against defendants Nash, Starling, Avalos, and Provencal (doc. #8 at 5:10–11) and a due 24 process claim in count three against defendant Nevens (id. at 6:12–13). Defendants now bring the instant 25 motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust 26 administrative remedies. (Doc. #27). 1 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner must exhaust available 2 administrative remedies before bringing a federal action. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is an 3 affirmative defense, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211–12 (2007), under which defendants have the 4 burden of proving that further administrative remedies are available to the plaintiff, Brown v. Valoff, 422 5 F.3d 926, 936 (9th Cir. 2005). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative 6 remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt v. Terhune, 7 315 F.3d 1108, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2003). The proper remedy where the defendant can show that a claim 8 has not been exhausted is dismissal without prejudice. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (failure to exhaust 9 administrative remedies is not decision on the merits). 10 A prison inmate in Nevada satisfies the administrative exhaustion requirement by following the 11 procedures of administrative regulation (“AR”) 740 (docs. #27-3, 27-4), which requires one informal 12 and two formal levels of review (id. at 10, §1.1 “Levels of Review”). An inmate must first file and 13 receive a response to an informal grievance before moving on to the second levels. Id. The plaintiff must 14 have complied with all of the Nevada prison system’s procedural rules so that the agency addresses the 15 issue on its merits before the plaintiff files a legal action. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). 16 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s inmate issue history (docs. #27-1, 27-2) and finds that Smith 17 has failed to exhaust the established grievance process. Specifically, plaintiff never filed any grievances 18 regarding his claims that (1) defendant Nash threatened to lock him in the hole, and (2) on May 12, 2010, 19 defendants Starling, Avalos, and Provencal searched his cell, both allegedly in retaliation for his having 20 filed grievances. Additionally, plaintiff failed to file a first or second level formal grievance following 21 his informal complaints that (1) on April 19, 2010, defendant Starling entered his cell and took his 22 glasses and legal papers, and (2) defendant Neven never responded to plaintiff’s complaint that he could 23 not obtain grievance forms. 24 The court also finds plaintiff’s allegation that he was denied access to grievance forms 25 insufficient to defeat defendants’ affirmative defense of administrative exhaustion. Although plaintiff 26 has attached to the complaint (doc. #5) a document wherein he complained that neither his unit nor his 2 1 caseworker had any available grievance forms, the “official response” in his record authorized plaintiff 2 to “use plain or lined paper if kites are not available.” (Doc. #27-1 at 2). Thereafter, plaintiff nonetheless 3 failed to file a first or second level formal grievance. Thus, the court finds no reason to excuse plaintiff 4 from the administrative exhaustion requirements. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motion to dismiss 7 (doc. #27) is GRANTED; 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice. 9 Dated this 25th day of May, 2011. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?