(PC) Sharpe v. Sherman, et al.

Filing 61

ORDER Concerning Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 03/31/2021.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADAM SHARPE,

12

No. 1:19-cv-00711-DAD-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. CRYER, et al.,

15

ORDER CONCERNING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants.

16
Adam Sharpe (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17
18

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s

19

complaint (ECF No. 1), which he filed on May 21, 2019, against Defendant C. Cryer, J. Lewis

20

and S. Gates for deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment and against Defendant S. Smith for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth

22

Amendment. (ECF No. 33).
On December 24, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to Defendant

23
24

Smith only on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against

25

Defendant Smith. (ECF No. 50). Defendants attached several non-healthcare grievances and

26

supporting documents from individuals who process non-healthcare grievances. (ECF Nos. 50-4

27

& 50-5).

28

///
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on March 4, 2021. His opposition refers to, but
does not attach, a healthcare grievance:
Plaintiff did exhaust appeal Log # HC 19001205 which is also the basis of this
lawsuit and speaks to a general grievance on plaintiff’s treatment and living
conditions regarding his keratoconus at the time of the filing of this suit Plaintiff
was without proper contact lenses and thus severly visually impaired shortly after
being seriously injured in a cell assault as Plaintiff warned was a risk in BOTH
his reasonable accommodation request.
(ECF No. 57 at 8-9) (as in original).
Defendants filed a reply on March 12, 2021. Defendants claim it did not satisfy the
exhaustion requirement. (ECF No. 58 at 4). However, Defendants do not attach the grievance.
Given that Defendant Smith is requesting dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendant

11

Smith based on non-exhaustion, Defendant Smith has provided information on what it claims are

12

the relevant administrative grievances, but Defendant Smith has not provided information on one

13

grievance that Plaintiff contends exhausts his administrative remedies, the Court orders as

14

follows:

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days, Defendants shall file

16

a copy of Plaintiff’s administrative grievance related to “Log # HC 19001205,” as well as

17

sufficient documents or evidence to determine if that grievance was exhausted at the third level.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 31, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2