(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)

Download PDF
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

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?