Shelton v. Chorley

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING 21 Motion for Judgment signed by District Judge Mary H. Murguia on 09/26/2009. (Martin, S)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A d a m Shelton, Jr., Plaintiff, vs. G le n Chorley,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

N o . CV-1-07-560-PHX-MHM ORDER

P lain tiff Adam Shelton, Jr., who is a state prisoner confined in the Kern Valley State P r is o n in Delano, California, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. P e n d in g before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. # 21) H a v in g considered the parties' pleadings, the exhibits related thereto, as well as the a p p lic a b le law, the Court now enters its ruling. I. BACKGROUND P la in tif f filed a Complaint on April 11, 2007, alleging that on March 22, 2006, as he w a s going to the medical clinic for diabetic testing, he was stopped by Defendant Chorley b e c au s e he was wearing his personal shoes, in contravention of a recent memo. Plaintiff a lle g e d that he attempted to explain to Defendant that had a verified medical chrono allowing h im to wear his shoes, but Defendant would not listen. According to Plaintiff, Defendant g ra b b e d him, flipped him on his head, came down on his face and back with full body

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

w e ig h t, and injured his arm so severely that a metal rod had to be placed in his arm to hold a n d replace torn tendons and ligaments. (Doc. # 1, p. 3 & attachment) P lain tif f alleged that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference by denying him m e d ic a l care on March 22, 2003 and refusing to verify his chrono in violation of the Eight A m e n d m e n t. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant used excessive physical force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. # 1, p. 3) On June 19, 2007, Magistrate Judge Sandra Snyder issued an order finding that P la in tif f failed to exhaust his claims prior to filing suit and recommending that the Complaint b e dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. # 8) On July 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to th e Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, attaching as evidence his grievance f o rm s and the replies thereto. (Doc. # 9) Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued an order v a c atin g her June 19, 2007 order, finding that "Plaintiff's evidence and explanation raise an is s u e of fact regarding whether his appeal was rejected despite his compliance with the p ro p e r procedures and the appeals coordinator's requests for supplementation." (Doc. # 10, p . 2) The Magistrate Judge further found that Plaintiff's Complaint stated a cognizable claim fo r use of excessive force, but did not state a claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's m e d ica l needs. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff the opportunity to a m en d his Complaint or proceed only on the excessive force claim. (Doc. # 10, p. 5) On O c to b e r 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a notice that he was willing to proceed only on the excessive fo rc e claim. (Doc. # 11) On November 12, 2008, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the P lea d in g s. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with re sp e c t to his excessive force claim. Plaintiff filed a response, contending that he "did all [ h e ] could to exhaust [the] administrative grievance process." (Doc. # 25) Attached as e x h ib its are copies of Plaintiff's grievance forms and the CDC's replies. The exhibits show that on March 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed a 602 inmate appeal d e sc rib in g the alleged assault by Defendant:

-2-

1 2 3 4 5

O n 3/22/06, about 6:25 a.m., I was on my way to medical line, I do this 7 days a week, but this c/o Chorley stop me & told me that I could not go to medical b e c au s e I had on my personal shoes on & the day before I was told by another p e tio officer & the M.T.A. that my chrono was still good. So I ask c/o Chorley to just take me to medical & they will tell him, he told me no, so I ask to talk w ith the Sgt. & he told me no, then took me by my right arm, then spin me, p ic k me up & slam me on top of my head & that is unnecessary force and e x c e s s iv e force. (Id., Ex. 1, p. 4)

6 On April 12, 2006, the appeals coordinator returned the grievance form with the 7 8 u sed ." (Id., Ex. 1, p. 1) 9 On April 25, 2006, Plaintiff re-submitted a 602 appeals form, once again describing 10 D e f e n d a n t' s refusal to allow him in the medical line wearing his personal shoes: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff alleged that he completed his first grievance in pencil because he "was in Ad-Seg lock-up" and therefore "only had a pencil at the time." (Doc. # 1, p. 2, Doc. # 25, Ex. 1, p. 4) -31

n o tatio n , "Complete in blue or black ink.1 Explain further how excess force was allegedly

O n 3/22/06 at 6:25 a.m. I was released from my cell B5-118 on my way to the M T A Building. I go 7 days a week. c/o Chorley stopped me this morning and to ld me I can't go to the MTA Building with personal shoes on! I pulled out m y shoe "Chrono" c/o Chorley still refused to let me go get my medication, so I asked to speak to a "Sgt" and he said No take it to your cell. I turned on my w a y to the section I live in & at that time I was assaulted by c/o Chorley. I was sla m e d (sic) on my head from behind for no reason at all. Per the CCR Title 1 5 Sub-Section 3268(2)(2)(3) c/o Chorley is out of line. (Id., Ex. 2, p. 1) On May 17, 2006, the appeals coordinator returned the grievance form with the nota tio n , "Provide clarification regarding your staff complaint. How was your head "slamed" ex p lain in detail what transpired afterwards. Did anyone witness this?" (Id., Ex. 4) In re sp o n s e to this request, Plaintiff described the details of the alleged assault in a document d a te d May 28, 2006. (Id., Ex. 4, p. 2, Ex. 5) O n a form titled "Inmate Request for Interview" and dated June 6, 2006, Plaintiff s ta te d that he had not yet received a response to his grievance and inquired about the status o f his appeal. ((Id., Ex. 5) On January 5, 2007, and again on February 5, 2007, the appeals c o o rd in a to r returned Plaintiff's grievance form, explaining that there had been too great a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

tim e lapse between when the action or decision occurred and when Plaintiff filed his appeal w ith no explanation why Plaintiff did not or could not file in a timely fashion. (Id., Ex. 7; E x . 3, p. 2) The appeals coordinator stated that Plaintiff's appeal would not be processed fu rth er. (Id., Ex. 3, p. 2) II. L E G A L STANDARD T h e Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") provides that a prisoner may not bring a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 unless all available administrative re m e d ie s have been exhausted. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1 0 4 7 , 1050 (9th Cir. 2006); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). A p riso n e r must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable ru les . See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006). Exhaustion is required for all suits a b o u t prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002), regardless of the type of relief o f f e re d through the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). D e f en d a n t bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt, 315 F .3 d at 1119. Because exhaustion is a matter of abatement in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) m o tio n , a court may look beyond the pleadings to decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1 1 1 9 -2 0 . Further, a court has broad discretion as to the method to be used in resolving the f a ctu a l dispute. Ritza v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). III. E X H A U S T I O N PROCESS T o satisfy § 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust the grievance procedures established b y the prison in which the inmate is housed. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. Under California law, in m a te s may appeal "any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can d e m o n s tra te as having an adverse effect upon their welfare." CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15, § 3 0 8 4 .1 (a ). The California Department of Corrections (CDC") grievance process is

c o m p r is e d of a four-tiered hierarchy. See CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15, § 3084.5. An inmate

-4-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

m u s t first attempt to informally resolve the problem with the "staff involved in the action or d e c is io n being appealed." CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15, § 3084.5(b). If that attempt is

u n s u c c e s s f u l, the inmate must submit a formal appeal on an approved form to the c o rre c tio n a l institution's appeals coordinator, id., and if unsuccessful there, submit another f o rm a l appeal for a second level of review conducted by the warden or his or her designee. S e e CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15, §§ 3084.5© & 3084.5(e)(1). If the warden denies the appeal, th e inmate must then submit a formal appeal to the director of the CDC. See CAL. CODE R EGS. tit. 15, § 3084.5(e)(2). The director's decision "shall be final and exhausts all a d m i n is tra tiv e remedies available in the Department [of Corrections]." CALIFORNIA

D EPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OPERATIONS MANUAL § 54100.11. (Doc. # 67, ex. 6) III. D IS C U S S IO N D efen dan t argues that Plaintiff's claim of excessive force should be dismissed because P lain tiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. To support his p o s itio n , Defendant provides two declarations by CDC appeals personnel, who assert that the g rie v a n ce s that the Inmate Appeals Office received and accepted for review between March 2 2 , 2006 (the date of the alleged injury) and April 11, 2007 (the date Plaintiff filed suit) did n o t contain an excessive physical force allegation against Defendant (Doc. # 21, pp.2, 4; B illin g s Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A-B), and that the Inmate Appeals Branch did not accept any appeals f ro m Plaintiff for a Director's Level Decision during this time (Doc. # 21, pp. 2, 5; Grannis D e c l. ¶ 5). Defendant concludes that the absence of any excessive force grievances at these le v e l s demonstrates that Plaintiff failed to comply with the PLRA's exhaustion requirements. T h e Court disagrees. T o satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a grievance must alert prison officials to the c la im s the plaintiff has included in the complaint. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525 (2002) ( p u r p o s e of exhaustion requirement is to give officials "time and opportunity to address co m p lain ts internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case."). The "primary p u rp o s e of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice

-5-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to a specific official that he or she may be sued." Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (5 th C ir. 2004) Here, Plaintiff's March 31, 2006 grievance (regardless of whether it was written in pencil or ink), as well as his subsequent April 25, 2006 grievance, were sufficient to p ro v id e the prison with a fair opportunity to address the problem and to put the prison on n o tic e of Plaintiff's potential excess force claim. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff exhausted all available administrative re m e d ie s. See Porter, 534 U.S. at 524. In considering Defendant's Motion for Judgment on th e Pleadings, the Court accepts all of Plaintiff's allegations of fact as true, Austad v. United S ta te s , 386 F.2d 147, 149 (1967), and construes all reasonable inferences drawn from these f a c ts in Plaintiff's favor, General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventist C o n g reg atio n al Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9 th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff alleges, and the record d e m o n s tra te s, that he complied with the prison's grievance procedures. On March 31, 2006, n in e days after the alleged injury, Plaintiff filed a grievance on a 602 inmate appeal form. In response to the appeals coordinator's requests for supplementation, on April 25, 2006, P la in tif f re-submitted a timely 602 appeal form, and on May 28, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a tim e ly detailed clarification of the alleged assault. (Doc. # 25, Ex. 4, p. 2, Ex. 5). On June 2 0 , 2006, Plaintiff inquired about the status of his grievance, stating that he had not yet rec eiv e d a response. (Doc. # 25, Ex. 5) Plaintiff's inquiry went unanswered until January 5 , 2007, when the appeals coordinator informed Plaintiff that there had been" too great a time la p s e between when the action or decision occurred" and when Plaintiff filed his appeal. (Doc. # 25, Ex. 7) On January 18, 2007, Plaintiff responded that he had placed his appeal in the housing unit's appeals box in April "within the requisite time" and therefore the a p p e als coordinator's "receipt of it on December 28, 2006" was "not [his] fault." (Doc. # 25, E x . 7) On February 5, 2007, the appeals coordinator once again responded that there had b e e n "too great a time lapse" and stated that the appeal would "not be processed further." U n d er the facts presented here, the Court finds that Plaintiff complied with the prison's g rie v a n c e procedures and exhausted his administrative remedies.

-6-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 # 21)

A c c o r d i n g l y, I T IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc.

D A T E D this 26 th day of September, 2009.

-7-