61 Cal.App.5th 998
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Ricky Tyrone Foster, a self‑represented inmate, was injured in an August 6, 2017 racial incident at Corcoran State Prison; while hospitalized prison staff took custody of his personal property and some items (including legal papers) were not returned.
- Foster filed a petition for writ of replevin in Kings County seeking return of property or $500 in value; his original petition did not allege exhaustion of inmate administrative remedies or an excuse for not exhausting.
- CDCR grievance history: Foster submitted Form 22 and multiple Form 602 appeals; some appeals were screened, rejected, reassigned, or cancelled; Foster alleges misdirection by staff, improper screening, untimely processing, and other interference by prison officials.
- The superior court brought and granted a sua sponte motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Foster’s petition for failure to plead exhaustion through the third level; Foster appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held (1) exhaustion of inmate remedies is an essential element of a state‑law action for return of prison property (but the Government Claims Act claim‑presentation requirement does not apply to his narrow replevin/return‑of‑property remedy), (2) California law excuses exhaustion where the grievance process is unavailable due to machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation (adopting Ross v. Blake’s third category), and (3) when pleading such unavailability the plaintiff must allege specific facts (how, when, where, to whom, and by what means) showing officials thwarted the grievance process.
- The Court reversed the dismissal and remanded with directions to vacate the dismissal order and grant leave to file a single First Amended Petition pleading conversion/replevin claims plus the detailed factual allegations supporting excuse from exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleading exhaustion (or an excuse) is required in a state action seeking return of prison property | Foster did not allege exhaustion but argued exhaustion should be excused because grievance process was unavailable | Court (respondent) relied on absence of exhaustion as ground for dismissal | Pleading exhaustion or a valid excuse is an essential element for inmate suits seeking return of property under California law; failure to plead it supports judgment on the pleadings |
| Whether the Government Claims Act claim‑presentation requirement applies to a petition for return of property/value | Foster argued he need not present a Government Claims Act claim because he seeks return of specific property or its value | Respondent argued tort/monetary relief might trigger claim‑presentation | The Court follows Escamilla: a narrow replevin/return‑of‑property petition is not a "claim for money or damages" under the Government Claims Act, so claim‑presentation is not required |
| Whether exhaustion can be excused because the grievance process was "unavailable" due to prison misconduct | Foster argued prison officials thwarted and misled him (improper screening, wrong instructions, mail/processing delays), making appeals unavailable | Respondent maintained remedies were available and Foster failed to exhaust | The Court adopts Ross v. Blake’s category: exhaustion is excused where administrators thwart grievances by machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation; however, the plaintiff must plead specific facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the misconduct occurred |
| Whether dismissal for failure to file a first amended petition was proper given Foster’s filings and pro se status | Foster contended he filed responsive papers and the court mischaracterized them; dismissal punished a misunderstanding | Respondent relied on Foster’s failure to file a proper amended pleading as justification for dismissal | The Court found Foster misunderstood the technical requirement of filing a single First Amended Petition; his filings were not amended pleadings; dismissal for willful disobedience was not appropriate; leave to amend is open on appeal (City of Stockton) and the dismissal was reversed and remanded with directions to allow a conforming First Amended Petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Escamilla v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 141 Cal.App.4th 498 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (inmate may seek writ/mandate for return of specific personal property or its value without presenting a Government Claims Act claim)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. 2016) (administrative remedy is unavailable where prison administrators thwart grievances by machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation)
- Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2010) (repeated improper screening at intake can render administrative remedies effectively unavailable)
- Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court, 128 Cal.App.4th 85 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (enumerating exceptions to exhaustion: outside jurisdiction, irreparable harm, inadequate/unavailable, or futility)
- Voris v. Lampert, 7 Cal.5th 1141 (Cal. 2019) (elements of conversion; conversion is a strict‑liability tort)
- City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007) (issue of leave to amend is always open on appeal)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (under federal PLRA, exhaustion is an affirmative defense and need not be pleaded)
- Parthemore v. Col, 221 Cal.App.4th 1372 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (an inmate complaint is vulnerable to demurrer if it fails to plead exhaustion or a valid excuse)