Fields v. Roberts
Filing
114
FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss Be GRANTED (Doc. 106 ), Objections, If Any, Due In Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/14/2013. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 12/19/2013. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KEVIN E. FIELDS,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
vs.
P. ROBERTS, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
I.
1:06-cv-00407-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT’S
AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS BE
GRANTED
(Doc. 106.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
BACKGROUND
16
Kevin Fields ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
17
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
18
April 10, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the Fifth Amended Complaint filed
19
by Plaintiff on June 24, 2010, against defendant Dr. Jeff Neubarth (“Defendant”) for deliberate
20
indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs.1 (Doc. 51.)
21
On August 6, 2013, Defendant filed an amended motion to dismiss this action for
22
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 106.) On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed
23
an opposition.2
(Docs. 109, 110.)
On September 20, 2013, Defendant filed a reply to
24
25
26
1
The Court dismissed Defendant P. Roberts from this action on March 12, 2012, based on Plaintiff=s
failure to effect service. (Doc. 75.) Therefore, Jeff Neubarth is the only Defendant remaining in this action.
2
27
28
Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion
by Defendant in the amended motion to dismiss of August 7, 2013. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14
(9th Cir. 2003); Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012). (Doc. 106 at 2.)
1
1
Plaintiff’s opposition, and on September 23, 2013, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration
2
in support of the reply. (Docs. 112, 113.) Defendant’s amended motion to dismiss is now
3
before the court.
4
II.
5
6
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT NEUBARTH
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) in Corcoran,
California, where the events at issue allegedly occurred. Plaintiff’s factual allegations follow.
7
Plaintiff alleges that in May of 2004, he was diagnosed with “serious chronic maladies
8
in my neck: degenerative herniated discs, osteoarthritic changes, and compression on my
9
cervical spine cord.” (5th Am. Compl., Doc. 51 ¶10.) Plaintiff suffered from severe and
10
excruciating pain, and was treated with aspirin, Tylenol and Motrin. These drugs proved
11
ineffective, and “several doctors” prescribed Vicodin, Norco and Hydrocordone to alleviate the
12
pain. (Id. ¶12.)
13
On December 13, 2005, Plaintiff was transported to Mercy Medical Center in
Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Rashidi “regarding the severe/excruciating and
14
Bakersfield.
15
debilitating pain caused by the serious/chronic maladies in my neck.” (Id. ¶13.) Dr. Rashidi
16
noted that Plaintiff’s Vicodin/Norco prescription would expire on December 18, 2005, and
17
renewed Plaintiff’s prescription. Plaintiff was returned to CSP. (Id. ¶14.) Plaintiff alleges that
18
by December 18, 2005, his prescription had not been refilled. On December 27, 2005, Plaintiff
19
was seen by defendant Dr. Neubarth. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dr. Neubarth “refused to
20
renew/refill my prescription for vicodin/norco and or prescribe any other treatment.” (Id. ¶17.)
21
On January 5, 2006, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance, “complaining of Defendant
22
Neubarth’s deliberate indifference, through his failure to treat me for my severe/excruciating
23
and debilitating pain caused by my serious/chronic maladies in my neck.” (Id. ¶18.) On
24
January 19, 2006, Dr. Viravathana (not a named defendant) ordered the pharmacy to refill
25
Plaintiff’s Vicodin/Norco prescription, though with a decreased dosage. (Id. ¶20.)
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
III.
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
2
A.
3
Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (APLRA@) provides that
4
A[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. ' 1983], or any
5
other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until
6
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a). Prisoners
7
are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock,
8
549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-
9
1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and
10
regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct.
11
1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life,
12
Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002).
Statutory Exhaustion Requirement
13
Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative
14
defense under which defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of
15
exhaustion.
16
nonjudicial administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject to an unenumerated
17
Rule 12(b) motion, rather than a summary judgment motion. Wyatt at 1119 (citing Ritza v.
18
Int=l Longshoremen=s & Warehousemen=s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per
19
curium)). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the
20
Court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt at 1119-20. If
21
the Court concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the proper
22
remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id.
Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119.
The failure to exhaust
23
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the California Department of Corrections
24
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints.
25
Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15 ' 3084.1. The process is initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id.
26
at ' 3084.2(a)(2004).
27
calendar days of the event being appealed or of receiving an unacceptable lower level appeal
28
decision. Id. at ' 3084.6(c)(2004). Three formal levels of appeal are involved, including the
In 2004, prisoners were required to submit appeals within fifteen
3
1
first level, second level, and third level. Id. at ' 3084.5(2004). In order to satisfy ' 1997e(a),
2
California state prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing
3
suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d. at 1199-1201.
4
B.
5
Defendant moves to dismiss this action on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the
6
CDCR=s administrative appeals process regarding his claims against Defendant. Defendant
7
provides evidence that between December 27, 2005, the date of the incident at issue in the
8
complaint, and April 10, 2006, the date Plaintiff filed this action, Plaintiff submitted two inmate
9
appeals to the Third Level of review: (1) COR-05-04270 and (2) COR-05-04808. (Declaration
10
of D. Foston, Doc. 105-3 ¶3.) Both appeals, however, were decided at the Third Level of
11
review after April 10, 2006. (Id.) COR-05-04270 was denied on May 17, 2006, and COR-05-
12
04808 was denied on June 5, 2006. (Id.)
Defendant’s Amended Motion
13
Defendant also provides evidence that between December 27, 2005 and April 10, 2006,
14
Plaintiff submitted two appeals to the First Level of review at CSP, on February 3, 2006: (1)
15
CSPC-5-06-00388 and (2) CSPC-5-06-00371. (Declaration of A. Pacillas, Doc. 105-2 ¶4, Exh.
16
1-2.) Appeal CSPC-5-06-00388 was granted at the First Level of review on February 21, 2006.
17
(Id. ¶5, Exh. 1.) Defendant argues that this appeal is not relevant to this action, because
18
Plaintiff only complains that he suffered “stomach pains” after he was placed on a “medical
19
diet” but did not immediately receive an updated chrono or his special lunch, and there is no
20
mention of Plaintiff’s neck and back pain or a failure to renew a medical prescription for
21
“Vicodin/Norco.” (Id.)
22
Defendant argues that Appeal CSPC-5-06-00371 does not satisfy the exhaustion
23
requirement for the instant action, because Plaintiff did not submit this appeal to the Third
24
Level of review, (Foston Decl. ¶3.; Pacillas Decl. ¶6, Exh. 2), and the appeal was not partially
25
granted at the Second Level of review until April 13, 2006, after Plaintiff filed this lawsuit,
26
(Pacillas Decl. ¶6, Exh. 2.; see also Doc. 1). Defendant also argues that this appeal was not
27
sufficient to place the institution on notice of Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Neubarth.
28
///
4
Plaintiff’s Opposition
1
C.
2
Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to complete the appeals process for Appeal
3
CSPC-5-06-00371. However, Plaintiff argues that he exhausted the remedies available to him
4
with Appeal CSPC-5-06-00371.
5
Plaintiff argues that he received all of the remedies available to him after completing the
6
First Level of review and therefore, he was not required to proceed to the next level of review.
7
Plaintiff asserts that he filed Appeal CSPC-5-06-00371 on January 5, 2006, complaining of
8
defendant Neubarth’s deliberate indifference for his failure to treat Plaintiff for severe pain.
9
(Plaintiff’s Declaration, Doc. 109 at 10 ¶5.) On January 19, 2006, after learning of Plaintiff’s
10
appeal, Dr. Viravathana ordered the pharmacy to refill Plaintiff’s prescription for
11
Vicodin/Norco through March 16, 2006, at a lower dosage. (Id. ¶¶6,7, Exh. A.) On February
12
16, 2006, the appeal was partially granted at the First Level of review. (Id. ¶8, Exh. B.)
13
Plaintiff cites Harvey v. Jordon, 605 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2010) in support of his argument
14
that the partial grant of his appeal at the First Level of review completed the process for his
15
appeal.
Defendant’s Reply
16
D.
17
Defendant first requests the court to disregard Plaintiff’s opposition as untimely,
18
because it was filed well after the deadline according to Local Rule 130(l). The court declines
19
to consider this request. A district court can, in its discretion, decline to consider arguments
20
raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Lane v. Dept. of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1140 (9th
21
Cir. 2008).
22
Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not exhaust his remedies with Appeal
23
CSPC-5-06-00371 because he did not wait to receive a response from the Second Level of
24
review before filing this lawsuit, and he did not receive a Third Level response until July 31,
25
2006, well after the April 10, 2006 initiation of this lawsuit.
26
Third, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim that he completed the appeals process is
27
not supported by Harvey v. Jordon, because Plaintiff’s claim that he was “satisfied’ when Dr.
28
Viravathana renewed his prescription, and that he had received “all available remedies” from
5
1
the grievance process at an intermediate level in Appeal CSPC-5-06-00371 is contradicted by
2
the fact that Plaintiff submitted the appeal to the second and third formal levels of review after
3
his prescription was renewed.
4
E.
5
Defendant has shown an absence of records of any relevant appeal by Plaintiff
6
completed through the Third Level of review before April 10, 2006, the date he filed this
7
lawsuit. Defendant’s evidence shows that between December 27, 2005, the date of the incident
8
at issue in Plaintiff’s complaint, and April 10, 2006, Plaintiff submitted two inmate appeals to
9
the Third Level of review, but both of them were decided at the Third Level of review after
10
April 10, 2006. Defendant’s evidence also shows that on February 3, 2006, Plaintiff submitted
11
two appeals to the First Level of review at CSP, but one of the appeals was not relevant to the
12
claim in this action, and the other appeal was not submitted to the Third Level of Review until
13
July 31, 2006, well after the April 10, 2006 initiation of this lawsuit.
Discussion
14
However, a timely third level response is not necessary to satisfy the exhaustion
15
requirement and the mere absence of a timely third level response does not entitle Defendant to
16
dismissal. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2005) (A[A] prisoner need not press
17
on to exhaust further levels of review once he has either received all >available= remedies at an
18
intermediate level or has been reliably informed by an administrator that no remedies are
19
available@). As discussed above, ' 1997e(a) provides that A[n]o action shall be brought with
20
respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. ' 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
21
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as
22
are available are exhausted.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a) (emphasis added). The question now is
23
whether Plaintiff exhausted all of the remedies that were made available to him.
24
Plaintiff has not opposed Defendant’s arguments that he did not exhaust his remedies
25
with Appeals COR-05-04270, COR-05-04808, or CSPC-5-06-00388.
26
argues that he completed the available remedies with Appeal CSPC-5-06-00371. Plaintiff
27
relies on Harvey v. Jordon in support of his argument that he was not required to complete the
28
appeals process for Appeal CSPC-5-06-00371, because he claims he received all the available
6
However, Plaintiff
1
remedies at an intermediate level of review. Harvey, 605 F.3d 681. However, as argued by
2
Defendant, the facts in Harvey are inapposite to the facts in Plaintiff’s case. In Harvey, the
3
plaintiff was satisfied with the response at an intermediate level partially granting his appeal,
4
and the plaintiff did not appeal the decision. The Harvey court held that the plaintiff had
5
exhausted his remedies and was not required to appeal a favorable decision that led him to
6
believe his complaint had been resolved. Here, in Plaintiff’s case, the appeals process did not
7
end when Plaintiff received a First Level response partially granting Appeal CSPC-5-06-00371.
8
After he received the First Level response, Plaintiff continued to submit the appeal to the
9
Second and Third Levels of review. Plaintiff continued to make requests for changes in his
10
prescription medication, for monetary compensation, and for his appeal to be handled as a staff
11
complaint. Such behavior by Plaintiff does not demonstrate satisfaction with the First Level
12
decision and does not show that Plaintiff exhausted all of his available remedies at the First
13
Level of review.
14
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has not shown that he exhausted his remedies using
15
the process required by the CDCR, or that he exhausted all of the remedies made available to
16
him before filing this lawsuit.
17
IV.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
18
Defendant Neubarth has met his burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
19
his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, in compliance with ' 1997e(a). Defendant has
20
shown evidence that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies by an inmate appeal pursuant to
21
Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations ' 3084.1, et seq., concerning Plaintiff=s
22
allegations in the complaint against Defendant in this action. Plaintiff has not shown that he
23
exhausted all the remedies available to him. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to dismissal of
24
this action, and the amended motion to dismiss should be granted.
25
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant
26
Neubarth’s amended motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust remedies, filed on August 7, 2013,
27
be GRANTED, and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
28
///
7
1
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
2
Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1).
3
Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of these Findings and
4
Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all
5
parties. Such a document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and
6
Recommendations.@ Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days
7
after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
8
specified time may waive the right to appeal the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,
9
951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
14
15
16
November 14, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?