-AGR Adrian Scott Morgan v. J. Johnston

Filing 110

ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: granting 91 Court GRANTS Defendants County of Los Angeles (sued erroneously as Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department), Sheriff Leroy Baca, Deputy Eric Tunforss, Dr. Chu-Hsian Chi, Dr. Policarpio F. Enriquez, Dr. K amron K. Hakhamimi, Hyo N. Lee, R.N., Suzanne M. McDonald, R.N.P., Dr. Patrick C. Paik, and Dr. Parvaneh P. Solnounis Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies 91 . The case shall be dismissed without prejudice (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (lc) Modified on 7/19/2011 (lc).

1

O

2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

CASE NO. CV 08-8357 ODW (AGRx)

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et)
)
al., AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
)
inclusive
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________ )
ADRIAN SCOTT MORGAN,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS [91]

18
19
20
21

Currently before the Court is Defendants County of Los Angeles (sued erroneously

22

as Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department), Sheriff Leroy Baca, Deputy Eric Tunforss,

23

Dr. Chu-Hsian Chi, Dr. Policarpio F. Enriquez, Dr. Kamron K. Hakhamimi, Hyo N. Lee,

24

R.N., Suzanne M. McDonald, R.N.P., Dr. Patrick C. Paik, and Dr. Parvaneh P. Solnouni’s

25

(“Defendants”), Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Adrian Scott Morgan’s (“Plaintiff”) Third

26

Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 91.) Having considered the matter, the Court deems the

27

matter appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal

28

1

1

Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule __”) and Local Rule 7-15 and GRANTS the instant

2

Motion.

3

Plaintiff instituted this action alleging five claims against Defendants: (1) Monell

4

claim against the Los Angeles County (“County”); (2) Eighth Amendment claim for

5

failure to furnish medical care against individual Defendants; (3) Fourteenth Amendment

6

claim against individual Defendants; (4) Conspiracy to violate civil rights; and (5)

7

violation of the American Disabilities Act against the County and official Defendants

8

only. Plaintiff bases his claims on allegations that describe a series of events showing an

9

utter failure by various prison officials and employees in attending to Plaintiff’s medical

10

needs (left femur fracture) for a period of over two years. At this time, Defendants move

11

to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. As a threshold matter, the Court addresses whether Plaintiff

12

exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

13

The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s unfortunate circumstances. It is clear, however,

14

that Plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to instituting an action in this

15

Court. Specifically, § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides

16

that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 of this

17

title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, or other correctional

18

facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. §

19

1997e(a). Prisoners are thus required to exhaust all available administrative remedies

20

prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311

21

F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is

22

mandatory regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

23

731, 741 (2001), and applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle,

24

534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). In order to properly exhaust administrative remedies, an

25

inmate must “make full use of the prison grievance process.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.

26

81, 94-95 (2006).

27

The exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but rather creates an affirmative

28

defense that a defendant may raise in a non-enumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Wyatt v.
Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117-19 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of
2

1

raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Id. at 1119. In deciding the motion, “the

2

court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. If the court

3

concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted all of his available administrative remedies,

4

“the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Id. at 1120. If a

5

complaint contains exhausted and unexhausted claims, “the court proceeds with the good

6

and leaves the bad.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 221.

7

In this case, Plaintiff implicitly admits to the fact that his administrative remedies

8

were not exhausted by arguing only that exhaustion was not necessary because Plaintiff

9

is seeking monetary damages. (Opp’n at 3-4.) In support, Plaintiff bases his argument

10

on outdated Ninth Circuit authority. The Supreme Court in Booth established that

11

Congress mandated exhaustion regardless of the relief offered through administrative

12

procedures. 532 U.S. at 741 (“Congress’s imposition of an obviously broader exhaustion

13

requirement makes it highly implausible that it meant to give prisoners a strong

14

inducement to skip the administrative process simply by limiting prayers for relief to

15

money damages not offered through administrative grievance mechanisms.”).

16

Exhaustion, therefore, is no longer left to the discretion of the district court, but is

17

mandatory. Id. at 739. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to

18

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative

19

remedies. The case shall be dismissed without prejudice.1

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

July 19, 2011

23

_________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
1

We construe the dismissal of this case to be without prejudice. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at1120
(explaining that if the court concludes that a prisoner has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is
dismissal without prejudice).
3