Darden v. Spencer et al

Filing 80

ORDER Following Telephonic Hearing Held on July 1, 2016; ORDER DENYING 50 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Failure to Exhaust signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/19/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERALDINE DARDEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

TODD SPENCER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:12-cv-01001-EPG-PC
ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC
HEARING HELD ON JULY 1, 2016
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BASED ON FAILURE TO EXHAUST
(ECF No. 50.)

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Geraldine Darden (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 21, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The case now proceeds

21

on the First Amended Complaint filed on February 11, 2013, against defendant Dr. Scott H.

22

Driscoll (“Defendant”), for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

23

(ECF No. 19.)1

24

The parties to this action have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28

25

U.S.C. ' 636(c). (ECF Nos. 39, 69.) Therefore, the undersigned shall conduct any and all

26

further proceedings in this action, including trial and final judgment.

27
28

1

On June 18, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 30.)
1

1

The discovery deadline for this case, established by the Court’s Discovery and

2

Scheduling Order issued on September 24, 2015, expired on May 24, 2016, and the deadline

3

for filing dispositive motions shall expire on August 4, 2016. On March 24, 2016, Defendant

4

filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

5

remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 50.) On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed an opposition to

6

the motion. (ECF No. 66.) On May 18, 2016, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition. (ECF

7

No. 71.)

8
9
10

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed three motions for issuance of subpoenas. (ECF Nos.
72, 73, 74.)
II.

JULY 1, 2016 TELEPHONIC HEARING

11

On July 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., a telephonic hearing was held before Magistrate Judge

12

Erica P. Grosjean to hear oral argument on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and to

13

discuss the status of this case. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on her own behalf, and Nicole

14

M. Jaffee of Donnelly, Nelson, Depolo & Murray appeared telephonically on behalf of

15

Defendant.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50)

16

A.

17

On March 24, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on

18

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, under 42 U.S.C. §

19

1997e(a). The Court heard oral argument at the July 1, 2016 hearing.

20

There was no dispute that Plaintiff failed to file an administrative appeal against

21

Defendant Dr. Driscoll using the prison’s appeal process. Plaintiff argued that administrative

22

remedies were not available to her at the prison because Defendant was an outside doctor not

23

employed at the prison. Plaintiff asserted that two of her prior appeals against outside doctors

24

were denied on the basis that the prison has no jurisdiction to hear appeals against outside

25

doctors. Plaintiff also asserted that Kathy Cane, an appeals coordinator at the prison, told her

26

that the prison’s appeals process was not available for grievances against outside doctors.

27

Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her remedies because she did not use the

28

process available at the prison for her grievance against Dr. Driscoll.
2

1
2

During oral argument, defense counsel confirmed that the prison grievance procedure
does not address outside doctors as part of its jurisdiction.

3

After consideration of the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for reasons stated on the

4

record, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Ross v. Blake

5

standard.2

6

B.

7

Status of Discovery
1.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Issuance of Subpoenas

8

At the hearing held on April 24, 2016, Plaintiff was granted leave to file requests for

9

issuance of subpoenas. (ECF No. 64 at 9:7-16.) On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed three motions

10

for issuance of subpoenas to third parties. (ECF Nos. 72, 73, 74.) Plaintiff seeks documents

11

showing rejection of her claim by the Government Claims Program, medical records from

12

Spencer Medical Group, and evidence that R2 Technologies sold a Computer Aided Detection

13

machine that was available for Defendant’s use.

14

The Court found that the subpoenas, to the extent Plaintiff seeks information about her

15

medical care at issue in this action, appeared reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

16

admissible evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff’s three motions were granted.

17

2.

Lawsuit(s) Against Defendant Driscoll for Fraud

18

At the hearing, Plaintiff discussed an interrogatory she served on Defendant asking him

19

if any lawsuits had been filed against him for fraud, to which Defendant responded there were

20

no such lawsuits. Plaintiff stated that she knew of a lawsuit for fraud against Defendant

21

Driscoll, filed by Spencer Radiology, 223 Cal.App.4th 630 (2014). Defendant argued that the

22

lawsuit in question was for breach of contract, not fraud, and therefore was not covered by

23

Plaintiff’s question.

24

///

25
26
27

2

Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016) (An inmate must exhaust available remedies, but
need not exhaust unavailable ones, and an administrative procedure is unavailable when it is not capable of use
and operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to
aggrieved inmates).

28
3

1

The Court ordered Defendant to make a supplemental response to Plaintiff’s

2

interrogatory if the case in question included a fraud claim against Defendant, and ordered that

3

Defendant is required to disclose all cases filed against him involving fraud.

4

3.

Plaintiff’s Request for More Discovery

5

At the hearing, Plaintiff requested leave to seek a declaration from Dr. Todd Spencer.

6

The Court denied Plaintiff’s request as untimely because discovery in this case has concluded,

7

and because it is an improper discovery request, i.e., the Court cannot order someone to submit

8

a declaration.

9

C.

10

Further Schedule

Defendant indicated his intention to file another motion for summary judgment before

11

expiration of the deadline. No further schedule was set.

12

III.

13
14

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, filed on March 24, 2016, is DENIED.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 19, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4