Quezada v. Cate et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny 17 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/15/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALVARO QUEZADA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 24)

Defendants.
CASE TO REMAIN OPEN

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against
Defendant Smith on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise of religion, Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection, and RLUIPA claims. (ECF No. 12.)

The

matter

was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On August 5, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies was plain from the face of the
complaint. (ECF No. 17.) On January 24, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings
and a recommendation to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 24.)
Defendant filed objections. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff filed no response.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the findings and recommendation to be supported by the record and by
proper analysis.

1

On the motion to dismiss, Defendant acknowledged that Plaintiff pursued an

2 administrative grievance regarding the issues raised in this litigation, i.e., the denial of
3 his kosher meals. However, Defendant argued that the grievance did not name
4 Defendant Smith and therefore, under the applicable regulations, did not exhaust
5 administrative remedies against her. The Magistrate Judge rejected that argument in
6 light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (2016).
7 Therein, the Ninth Circuit concluded that, “if prison officials ignore the procedural
8 problem [of failing to name a Defendant] and render a decision on the merits of the
9 grievance at each available step of the administrative process,” the prisoner has
10 exhausted “such administrative remedies as are available” under the PLRA. Id. at 658
11 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)).
12

Defendant objects that Reyes is distinguishable. According to Defendant, the

13 appeal in Reyes named no one. Here, however, Plaintiff’s appeal named someone
14 other Defendant. Also according to Defendant, the Reyes appeal referred to the Pain
15 Management Committee that denied the plaintiff’s medication and of which the
16 defendants were a part, allowing the prison to readily identify the staff involved. Here,
17 however, the prison could not have identified Defendant’s involvement in the issue.
18 Accordingly, Defendant argues, the principles applicable in Reyes do not apply here.
19

Defendant’s description of the facts in Reyes is not correct. Indeed, Reyes is

20 postured almost identically to the instant case. There, as here, the Plaintiff’s appeal
21 named a non-Defendant for the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s preferred medications.
22 Reyes v. Smith, No. 2:12–CV–0652–KJM–CMK–P, 2013 WL 3816011, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
23 July 19, 2013) (“He only states that Dr. Hashimoto, who is not named as a defendant in
24 this action, was responsible for the determination that plaintiff no longer required the
25 medication.”), rev'd, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 810 F.3d at 658 (“Drs. Smith
26 and Heatley argue that the grievance related on its face only to Dr. Hashimoto's
27 determination that Reyes should not receive narcotic pain medication, and thus did not
28 exhaust his claim relating to actions by the Pain Management Committee.”).
2

1 Additionally, in Reyes it was the appeal reviewers, and not the plaintiff, who identified
2 the Pain Management Committee’s involvement in the denial of the plaintiff’s pain
3 medication. 810 F.3d at 659. Here, Defendant’s involvement was equally plain to prison
4 officials: she reviewed Plaintiff’s appeal at the first level and signed the first level
5 decision. Reyes therefore is directly on point and contrary to Defendant’s argument.
6 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with administrative regulations requiring him to name all staff
7 members involved is not a bar to his claims in this action.
8

Lastly, Defendant argues that she could not have made the decision at issue in

9 this case because she had no authority to do so under Title 15 regulations. Indeed,
10 according to Defendant, the Rabbi named in Plaintiff’s grievance was the party
11 responsible for the decisions at issue in this action. This may be an appropriate basis
12 for summary judgment in Defendant’s favor; it is not, however, relevant on a motion to
13 dismiss as Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did approve kosher meals for other inmates.
14 See Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that, in
15 resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court’s review is generally limited to the operative
16 pleading).
17
18
19
20

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendation (ECF No. 24), filed
January 13, 2016, in full; and
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: March 15, 2016

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3