Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Terry D. Patton, a prisoner proceeding pro se, sued K. Thornton and other prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that after a March 17, 2024 fight with another inmate in Facility C, he told Defendants Lane and Thornton he did not want to return there, Defendant Ramsey took no action to prevent further altercations, and he was returned to Facility C anyway. After a second fight on July 23, 2024, he was placed in the Restrictive Housing Unit. At an Institution Classification Committee hearing on August 15, 2024, he allegedly requested a transfer out of Facility C for safety reasons but was released back there that day.
He alleges that after a couple of hours in his cell an inmate stabbed him eight times, beat him, and choked him. He was returned to restrictive housing the next day based on confidential information given to Ramsey, a move Patton calls an attempt to cover up the attack. He also alleges that Defendant Richards said he could help with a transfer only if Patton disclosed where phones, weapons, or drugs were. The court accepted these allegations as true for the motion only and made no findings about them.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Patton failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act because his grievance, Log No. 624080, raised different safety concerns than the complaint and did not identify them as responsible. Patton filed no opposition.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected Defendants' argument that the grievance was incorporated into the complaint, since the complaint mentioned it only in passing and Patton's claims do not depend on its contents. It nonetheless granted judicial notice of the grievance as an undisputed state administrative record, limited to its existence and what Patton wrote, not the truth of disputed facts inside it.
On exhaustion, the court noted that non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense that defendants must plead and prove, and that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only in the rare case where it is clear from the face of the complaint. Applying the rule that a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong, the court read Patton's grievance generously: he wrote that he was stabbed on the C yard patio, asked about a transfer, was told by the warden he had to claim safety or enemy concerns, and was sent back to C yard on August 15. That put the prison on notice of his safety concern and transfer request before the attack, and his additional protest of a later transfer to Facility D did not change this. A grievance also need not name every defendant, as Defendants conceded, and this one mentioned the warden and an investigative employee.
This is an order combined with findings and recommendations, not a final judgment. The court ordered the Clerk to randomly assign a District Judge, and recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to renewal as a summary judgment motion and that Defendants be required to answer, asserting lack of exhaustion as an affirmative defense if they choose. The recommendations go to the assigned District Judge; objections are due within 14 days after service. The merits of the underlying claims remain undecided.
Key Takeaways
- A grievance need only alert the prison to the nature of the wrong; it need not match the later complaint in every detail.
- A prisoner need not name each defendant in a grievance to exhaust remedies as to them.
- Judicial notice of a grievance covers its existence and contents, not the truth of disputed facts stated in it.
- Because the recommendation is to deny the motion without prejudice, Defendants may renew exhaustion on a developed record at summary judgment.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a court applies the Ninth Circuit's notice-based approach to exhaustion at the pleading stage: ambiguities in a pro se prisoner's grievance are read in his favor, and the defense is left for a motion with an evidentiary record. It also illustrates the limits of incorporation by reference and judicial notice when defendants offer a document to create a defense.
Because these are unadopted magistrate judge findings and recommendations in an Eastern District of California case, not a published or precedential ruling, they have no binding force and depend on adoption by the District Judge. Exhaustion, and the failure-to-protect claims themselves, remain open.