DeVon v. Diaz et al

Filing 53

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Defendants' Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Exhaust Be Granted, Dismissing This Action In Its Entirety (Doc. 41 ), Objections, If Any, Due In Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/24/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 10/29/2012.(Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALAN DeVON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:07-cv-01727-AWI-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST BE GRANTED, DISMISSING THIS ACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY (Doc. 41.) v. DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 16 / 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Alan DeVon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State Prison-Los 21 Angeles in Lancaster, California. The events at issue allegedly occurred at the California Substance 22 Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison ("SATF") in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was 23 incarcerated there. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 29, 2007. 24 (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the Fifth Amended Complaint filed on April 25, 2011, 25 against defendants Lieutenant T. Akin1 and Nurse Carlson ("Defendants"), for inadequate medical 26 care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 31.) 27 28 1 Plaintiff spells defendant's name as "Atkins" in the Fifth Amended Complaint. Defendant has corrected the spelling to "Akin." 1 1 On October 18, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action for failure to exhaust 2 administrative remedies. (Doc. 41.) On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. 3 (Doc. 43.) On April 19, 2012, Defendants filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 44.) On May 1, 4 2012, Plaintiff filed a surreply. (Doc. 45.) On May 4, 2012, Defendants filed a reply to the surreply. 5 (Doc. 46.) On July 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed another surreply. (Doc. 48.) On August 23, 2012, the 6 Court issued an order striking Plaintiff's two surreplies and permitting Plaintiff to withdraw his 7 opposition and file an amended opposition, in light of a separately issued Notice served upon 8 Plaintiff by the Court pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 9 (9th Cir 2012). (Docs. 49, 50.) 10 On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff withdrew his previously-filed opposition and filed an 11 amended opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 51.) On September 19, 2012, 12 Defendants filed an amended reply.2 (Doc. 52.) Defendants' motion to dismiss is now before the 13 Court. 14 II. STATUTORY EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT 15 Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that “[n]o action shall 16 be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by 17 a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 18 remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust 19 the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 20 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 21 Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief 22 offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the 23 exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 24 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002). 25 Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative 26 defense under which Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. 27 2 28 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion on July 9, 2012 and August 23, 2012. W oods, 684 F.3d 934; W yatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). (Docs. 47, 49.) 2 1 Jones, 549 U.S. at 216, 127 S.Ct. at 921; Wyatt, 315 F.3d at1119. The failure to exhaust nonjudicial 2 administrative remedies that are not jurisdictional is subject to an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, 3 rather than a summary judgment motion. 4 Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curium)). In 5 deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look 6 beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court 7 concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the proper remedy is 8 dismissal without prejudice. Id. 9 III. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza v. Int’l SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS 10 Plaintiff alleges as follows in the Fifth Amended Complaint. On September 10, 2008, at 6:15 11 a.m., at SATF, Lieutenant T. Atkins came to Plaintiff’s cell to weigh Plaintiff because Plaintiff had 12 been refusing non-Kosher food trays during the past two months. Plaintiff was “man-down” in his 13 cell lying on the floor with serious back pain and could not get up to weigh himself. Sgt. Jonas (not 14 named as a defendant) and Lt. Atkins accompanied a nurse to check on Plaintiff. The nurse asked 15 Jonas and Atkins whether Plaintiff appeared to be in serious distress. They decided not to call 16 medical staff. Lt. Atkins and the nurse told Plaintiff they would weigh him when he decided to get 17 up off the floor, and then they left. When the counting officer came by, Plaintiff pleaded for medical 18 help. 19 Plaintiff had previously been evaluated by the primary care physician, who found an unusual 20 bulge in Plaintiff’s lower back, and Plaintiff was scheduled for a MRI test. However, the MRI test 21 had not been done before Plaintiff was found on the floor. 22 Plaintiff remained stretched out on the floor for hours, unable to stand, eat, or take himself 23 to the bathroom. At 2:00 p.m., the Second Watch staff left, leaving word that Plaintiff should not 24 be taken to the emergency room. Lt. Atkins told medical staff and the Third Watch administration 25 to leave Plaintiff on the floor and that eventually Plaintiff would get up by himself. Plaintiff was left 26 unattended for several more hours. At 11:00 p.m., Plaintiff cried out to the First Watch staff, who 27 contacted Sgt. Williams (not named as a defendant). C/O Alverado (not named as a defendant) told 28 /// 3 1 Plaintiff that Lt. Atkins and the medical staff had told them not to help Plaintiff. Sgt. Williams 2 ordered Nurse Carlson to come and evaluate Plaintiff’s condition. 3 Plaintiff told Nurse Carlson he had radiating pain shooting from his neck down his back to 4 his left leg, but she (Carlson) did not notify the doctor who was on call. Nurse Carlson told the 5 correctional staff not to assist in lifting Plaintiff from the cell floor, that Plaintiff would have to crawl 6 to the ambulance. Plaintiff was ordered to crawl or he would not be given treatment. When his cell 7 door opened, Plaintiff held his breath and made every attempt to move himself over the threshold. 8 C/O Alverado had the emergency ENTs come back to E-Facility, and Plaintiff was again told by 9 Carlson to get up and crawl to them. Plaintiff attempted to crawl, without success. Sgt. Williams 10 told Carlson he felt that Plaintiff was in genuine distress, and that staff was available to carry 11 Plaintiff on the gurney, but Carlson refused to allow it. Plaintiff was left on the cell floor until he 12 complained of chest pain to get medical attention. Sgt. Williams had C/O Alverado and another staff 13 member pick Plaintiff up in a cradle position, pinching the nerve in Plaintiff’s back. Plaintiff 14 screamed out in pain. Nurse Carlson told the transportation team that Plaintiff was not in distress 15 and nothing was wrong with him. Plaintiff was finally placed on a bed and taken to CSATF CTC 16 Medical. An EKG was done, and Plaintiff’s heart was normal. A nerve had slipped in the disc of 17 18 Plaintiff’s lower back at L4 and L5. Plaintiff experienced numbness along his entire left side. 19 Nurse Carlson, Lt. Atkins, Warden J. Prudhomme and Warden R. Diaz all failed to check 20 Plaintiff’s records which were available on file. CCII Fouch told Plaintiff that it was Warden 21 Prudhomme who caused the deliberate indifference by placing Plaintiff in the hole and depriving him 22 of [Kosher] foods. Plaintiff spent over eighteen hours on the floor. Now Plaintiff needs assistive 23 devices – canes, back braces, medications for pain (morphine and Methadone) and physical therapy 24 – to walk more than 100 yards. His injuries are worse because the staff refused him medical 25 attention. Plaintiff lost his mobility and became ADA- and disability- verified, needing more and 26 more medications and treatments. 27 /// 28 /// 4 1 IV. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the California Department of Corrections and 3 Rehabilitation ("CDCR") has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code 4 Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). 5 Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first formal level, second formal 6 level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Id. at § 3084.5. The process is 7 initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal 8 level, and in 2008, appeals were required to be submitted within fifteen working days of the event 9 or decision being appealed, or of receiving an unacceptable lower level appeal decision. Id. at §§ 10 3084.5, 3084.6(c) (West 2008). In order to satisfy section 1997e(a), California state prisoners are 11 required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 12 81, 85-86, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 13 Defendants' Motion 14 Defendants Akin and Carlson argue that Plaintiff's claims against them should be dismissed 15 from this action because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to those 16 claims before filing suit. 17 Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s evidence that he filed an inmate appeal, Log number SATF-08- 18 04985, on September 17, 2008, addressing the events of September 10, 2008 at issue in this lawsuit. 19 (Plaintiff’s Production of Exhaustion Documents, Doc. 40, at 3; Exhibits to Deft’s Motion, Doc. 41- 20 1 at 7.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to complete the appeals process because the appeal 21 was rejected as untimely at the Third Level of review pursuant to 15 Cal.Code.Reg. 3084(c)(6). 22 (Doc. 40 at 11; Doc. 41-1 at 14.) With respect to Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Akin, 23 Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to mention defendant Akin by name in appeal SATF-08-04985, 24 and the appeal did not contain any of the allegations which Plaintiff makes against defendant Akin 25 in the Fifth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 40 at 3-11; Doc 41-1 at 6-14.) Defendants argue that 26 Plaintiff did not file any other appeals arising out of the September 10, 2008 incident that refer to 27 defendants Carlson or Akin. 28 /// 5 1 Plaintiff’s Opposition 2 The Court looks to Plaintiff’s Amended Opposition filed on September 10, 2012, Plaintiff’s 3 Production of Exhaustion Documents filed on October 12, 2011, and Plaintiff’s six complaints filed 4 on November 29, 2007, February 8, 2008, June 27, 2008, March 2, 2009, December 23, 2009, and 5 April 25, 2011.3 (Docs. 1, 12, 16, 23, 26, 31, 40, and 51.) 6 In his Amended Opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the three-month delay in submission of the 7 inmate appeal for Third Level review was not his fault. Plaintiff asserts that staff caused the delay, 8 preventing him from submitting the appeal during the fifteen-day filing period. (Amd. Opp’n, Doc, 9 51 at 1-2.) Plaintiff provides copies of the appeal as evidence, to show that the Second Level 10 response was completed on July 6, 2009, and that Plaintiff’s reply was sent to the Third Level on 11 July 20, 2009, but not stamped received until October 30, 2009. (Id., Exh. A at 5, 7.) 12 Discussion 13 The parties agree that on September 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal concerning the 14 events of September 10, 2008 at issue in this case, but that the appeal was rejected as untimely at the 15 Third Level of review. Plaintiff had fifteen days from the date he received the Second Level 16 response in which to file an appeal to the Third Level. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.6(c) (West 17 2008). The parties’ documentary evidence shows Plaintiff’s signature dated July 20, 2009 on his 18 written appeal to the Third Level; however, the appeal was not stamped “received” at the Third Level 19 until October 30, 2008. (Doc. 40 at 4-5; Doc. 41-1 at 7-8; Doc. 51 at 5,7.) Plaintiff’s argument that 20 the delay in submission of the appeal to the Third Level was caused by staff is unpersuasive. 21 Plaintiff declares that: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. W yatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20. Plaintiff signed the complaints under penalty of perjury. (Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 12 at 3; Doc. 16 at 4; Doc. 23 at 4; Doc. 26 at 3; Doc. 31 at 4.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss is based in part on the evidence in his verified complaints and their accompanying exhibits. Plaintiff’s amended opposition was also signed under penalty of perjury and is therefore admissible evidence. (Doc. 51 at 3.) W hile Plaintiff’s Production of Exhaustion Documents (Doc. 40) was not signed under penalty of perjury, Defendants have requested the court to take judicial notice of this document and all attachments thereto. (Doc. 41-1.) The court may take judicial notice of court records and administrative records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.l (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981); see United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003) (a court may consider such materials without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment); Fed. R. Evid. 201 (a court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). 6 4 “Upon receipt of appeal from the 2 Lvl. of the appeal (3) months delayed was no fault of Plaintiff. . . Staff delayed the time constraints creating an exception to not have the opportunity to submit grievance during the 15-day filing period. See Appeal attached as Exhibit. “A”. Due date on 2nd Lvl. review was June 18, 2009, appeal completed by 2nd Lvl. reviewer July 6, 2009. The appeal was mailed to the 3rd Lvl for review July 20, 2009 and it was stamped received @ Third Lvl. on October 30, 2009 then completed as untimely on December 1, 2009.” 5 (Amd. Opp’n, Doc. 51 at 2-3.) While Plaintiff’s evidence shows that he signed the appeal on July 6 20, 2009, and the appeal was received at the Third Level on October 30, 2009, Plaintiff provides no 7 evidence to support his statement that the appeal was mailed for Third Level review on July 20, 8 2009. Plaintiff provides no evidence to support his contention that staff somehow delayed the 9 submission of his appeal. The more plausible conclusion is that Plaintiff waited too long to mail the 10 appeal after signing it on July 20, 2009. In any event, Plaintiff fails to overcome Defendants’ 11 evidence that he failed to exhaust the remedies available to him. 1 2 3 12 Moreover, even if Plaintiff had exhausted all of his remedies via appeal SATF-08-04985, 13 Plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies before filing suit. Plaintiff filed the original Complaint for 14 this action on November 29, 2007, but he did not submit appeal SATF-08-04985 until September 15 17, 2008, nearly a year later. Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Akin and Carlson 16 did not arise until September 10, 2008, after Plaintiff filed suit, making it impossible for Plaintiff 17 to exhaust remedies before filing suit. 18 Plaintiff provides evidence that he filed two other appeals, SATF-08-05507 and SATF-08- 19 05509, on October 15, 2008. (Doc. 40 at 12-32.) However, neither of these appeals concerned the 20 events of September 10, 2008 upon which this case proceeds. 21 Based on the evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative 22 remedies available to him before filing suit, with respect to his claims in this action against 23 defendants Akin and Carlson. Therefore, defendants Akin and Carlson are entitled to dismissal of 24 the claims against them and dismissal of this action in its entirety. 25 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 26 Defendants Akin and Carlson have met their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to 27 exhaust his remedies with regard to Plaintiff’s allegations against them prior to filing suit, in 28 compliance with § 1997e(a). Defendants have shown an absence in the official records of any 7 1 evidence that Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal pursuant to Title 15 of the California Code of 2 Regulations § 3084.1, et seq., concerning his allegations in the complaint against defendants Akin 3 and Carlson in this action. Plaintiff has not submitted evidence of any appeals that satisfy the 4 exhaustion requirement, nor has Plaintiff submitted evidence that he exhausted all of the remedies 5 available to him before filing suit. 6 Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed October 18, 2011, be granted, and the claims against 7 Defendants in this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust, dismissing this action 8 in its entirety without prejudice. Therefore, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Court 10 Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within thirty (30) 11 days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file 12 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 13 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 14 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 15 order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij September 24, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?