Williams v. The State of California et al

Filing 50

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 45 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and that this Action be DISMISSED Without Prejudice re 15 First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/4/2012. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
DONALD B. WILLIAMS,

CASE NO.

1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED

11
12

v.
(ECF No. 45)

13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
14

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

Defendants.
15
/
16
17
18

Plaintiff Donald B. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Plaintiff began this action by filing his Complaint on February 2, 2011. (ECF No. 1.)

20

On March 17, 2011, the Court issued an Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with Leave

21

to Amend. (Order, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 20, 2011.

22

(Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) On August 29, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First

23

Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and found that Plaintiff stated a

24

cognizable claim. (Order, ECF No. 20.) Thus, this action is currently proceeding against

25

Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, Byers and Oneyeje for allegedly violating the Eighth

26

Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Id.)

27

On March 28, 2012, Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, and Oneyeje filed a Motion to

28

Dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

1

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Mot., ECF No. 45.) Defendant Byers filed a notice of

2

joinder in this Motion to Dismiss on April 2, 2012. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff has failed to file

3

any opposition, and the time for doing so has passed. Local Rule 230. The Motion to

4

Dismiss is now ready for ruling.

5

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

6

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) stipulates, “No action shall be brought

7

with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a

8

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

9

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Therefore, prisoners are

10

required to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock,

11

549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007).

12

requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general

13

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some

14

other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Further, the exhaustion of

15

remedies is required, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner, as long as the

16

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the prisoner's complaint. Booth

17

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

The Supreme Court held that “the PLRA's exhaustion

18

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative

19

grievance system for prisoner complaints; the process is initiated by submitting a CDCR

20

Form 602. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, 3084.2(a) (2009). During the time relevant

21

to this case, four levels of appeal existed: an informal level, a first formal level, a second

22

formal level, and a third formal level, also known as the "Director's Level"; each successive

23

and apeals had to be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being appealed.

24

Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c).1 To properly exhaust administrative remedies, a prisoner must

25

comply with the deadlines and other applicable procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548

26
27
28

1

Em ergency changes to the regulations becam e effective on January 28, 2011. The changes
occurred after the events at issue here and are therefore irrelevant to the resolution of Defendants’ Motion
to Dism iss.

-2-

1

U.S. 81, 93 (2006).

2

The exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement,

3

but rather is an affirmative defense. Defendants have the burden of proving plaintiff failed

4

to exhaust the available administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the District

5

Court. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). A motion raising a prisoner's failure to

6

exhaust the administrative remedies is properly asserted by way of an unenumerated

7

motion under Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003);

8

Ritza v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998)

9

(per curium). In determining whether a case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust

10

administrative remedies, “the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed

11

issues of fact” in a procedure that is “closely analogous to summary judgment.” Id. at

12

1119–20. When the court concludes the prisoner has not exhausted all of his available

13

administrative remedies, “the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice.” Id.

14

II.

ANALYSIS

15

A.

Plaintiff’s Claims

16

Plaintiff filed no opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Previously, in his

17

Amended Complaint, he alleged that he had been a type II insulin-dependent diabetic

18

since 2001. (Am. Compl. at 5.) He suffers from both hypo- and hyper-glycemia, i.e. low

19

and high blood sugar levels. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff was transferred to California State Prison

20

at Corcoran on July 26, 2010 on an emergency medical transfer. (Id. at 7.) Defendant

21

Enenmoh authorized this transfer. (Id. at 7.) Upon Plaintiff’s transfer, on or about August

22

25, 2010, Defendant Byers confirmed Plaintiff’s prior diagnosis as a diabetic individual. (Id.

23

at 7.)

24

On or about September 27, 2010, Defendant Enenmoh instructed the medical and

25

nursing staff at California State Prison at Corcoran to refuse to provide Plaintiff with

26

medical treatment. (Am. Compl. at 6.) On or about September 27, 2010, without a

27

doctor’s examination, Defendant Byers issued orders to Defendant LeMay to terminate all

28

of Plaintiff’s diabetic treatments and testing and declared that Plaintiff was no longer a
-3-

1

diabetic individual. (Id. at 7-8.) Defendant Faria also ordered that Plaintiff not receive any

2

diabetic treatment or testing. (Id. at 9.) On or about September 27, 2010, Defendant

3

LeMay ordered that Plaintiff’s medicines be confiscated. (Id. at 9.) On or about November

4

12, 2010, Defendant Oneyeje was appointed as Plaintiff’s attending physician, but refused

5

to intervene in Plaintiff’s medical treatment or the lack thereof. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff did not

6

receive any medical treatment for his diabetes from September 2010 to February 2011.

7

(Id. at 4.)

8

B.

9

Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants

10

argue that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to

11

exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the PLRA.

Plaintiff’s Appeals

12

According to Defendants, on October 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed an appeal, SATF-33-10-

13

14869, regarding Defendant Byers’ determination that Plaintiff was no longer diabetic, the

14

confiscation of his medication, and Plaintiff’s concern that he was not receiving any

15

medical care. (Mot. At 4; Crum. Decl. Ex. 1.) Plaintiff asked that he receive immediate

16

medical attention and that he be moved to another prison to receive proper medical

17

attention. (Id.) This appeal was partially granted at the second level, and Plaintiff was told

18

that he could further appeal the decision. (Id.) In his decision on Plaintiff’s appeal,

19

Defendant Enenmoh, the Chief Medical officer, found that Plaintiff was receiving sufficient

20

treatment for his diabetes. (Crum. Decl. Ex. 1.) Plaintiff apparently wanted his diabetes

21

treatment to be the same as it had been before he came California State Prison at

22

Corcoran. Thus, his appeal was not resolved in a manner satisfactory to him. His remedy

23

was to pursue appeal to the third formal level. Plaintiff failed to pursue this appeal past the

24

second formal level.

25

administrative remedies.

(Id.; Zampora Decl. at ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

26

Plaintiff has not objected to or countered the above history of his administrative

27

appeals. Wiht such evidence, Defendants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating

28

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. A result satisfactory to him may
-4-

1

have been available at the Office of Third Level Appeals-Health Care. It appears Plaintiff

2

failed to pursue that potential remedy.

3

Motion to Dismiss be granted in its entirety and this action be dismissed without prejudice.

4

V.

The Court thus recommends that Defendant’s

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants’

6

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 45) be granted and that this action be DISMISSED without

7

prejudice.

8

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
10 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party
11 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
12 should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
13 Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the
14 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
15 may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1 st, 951 F.2d 1153
16 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 Dated:
ci4d6
21

May 4, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-