Rodgers v. Tilton et al

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 9/1/2011 ORDERING that the Magistrate Judge's 63 Findings and Recommendations of July 8, 2011, be, and the same hereby are, adopted only to the extent they are consistent with this Order and Dr. Athanassious's 57 motion for summary judgment be, and same hereby is, GRANTED. (Duong, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo---11
12

KEVIN RODGERS,
NO. CIV. 2:07-02269 WBS DAD

13

Plaintiff,

14

ORDER RE: MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

15

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

/

18

----oo0oo----

19

Plaintiff Kevin Rodgers, a prisoner proceeding pro se,

20

brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

21

violations of his Eighth Amendment rights.

22

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local General Order No. 262, and Local

24

Rule 302(c)(17).

25

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,

26

and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant Dr.

27

Athanassious’s motion for summary judgment in part and deny it in

28

part.

The matter was

Defendant Dr. Athanassious filed a motion for

Dr. Athanassious’ filed timely objections to the
1

1

recommendation to deny part of his motion, and the court now

2

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations de

3

novo.

4

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
Most of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims involve an injury

5

that occurred to his finger when it was slammed in a cell door on

6

August 18, 2006, and the subsequent treatment of it.

7

Athanassious was the physician who initially treated plaintiff’s

8

finger, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant

9

Dr. Athanassious’s motion for summary judgment with respect to

10

plaintiff’s Eight Amendment inadequate medical care claim based

11

on Dr. Athanassious’s treatment of plaintiff’s finger.

12

has not objected to this recommendation.

Dr.

Plaintiff

13

In what appears to be unrelated to plaintiff’s injury

14

to and treatment of his finger, plaintiff also received medical

15

treatment on September 8, 2006, when he was unable to urinate.

16

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Athanassious forced a catheter into

17

his penis despite plaintiff’s repeated requests to stop because

18

it was causing him pain.

19

because of the pain it was causing plaintiff and plaintiff

20

experienced bleeding for three days after it was removed.

21

Dr. Athanassious’ moved for summary judgment on

The catheter was ultimately removed

22

plaintiff’s Eight Amendment inadequate medical care claim in

23

connection with the catheter incident on the grounds that

24

plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the

25

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).

26

plaintiff did not mention the catheter incident in his first

27

level inmate grievance that he filed on September 18, 2006, which

28

challenged Dr. Athanassious’s treatment of his finger.
2

It is undisputed that

(Pl.’s

1

Opp’n Ex. F (Log No. 06-1947).)

2

plaintiff did not mention the catheter incident in the second

3

level appeal of the denial of that grievance.

4

did, however, describe the catheter incident in his third level

5

appeal (Director’s Level Appeal) of his grievance, which he filed

6

on December 19, 2006.

7

was denied without mention of the catheter incident, and

8

plaintiff was informed that he had exhausted his administrative

9

remedies for that grievance.

(Id.)

It is also undisputed that

(Id.)

Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s Director’s Level Appeal

Based on plaintiff’s inclusion of the catheter incident

10
11

in the Director’s Level Appeal, the Magistrate Judge reasoned

12

that plaintiff sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies

13

on that claim because the prison officials did not “screen out”

14

plaintiff’s catheter claim as improperly presenting new

15

allegations that needed to be raised in a first level grievance.

16

The Magistrate Judge relied on Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813

17

(9th Cir. 2010), which upheld screening out of new issues raised

18

in a second level appeal because the inmate should have raised

19

the issues in a first level grievance.

20

reasoned that, because the prison officials failed to screen out

21

plaintiff’s catheter claim before informing plaintiff that his

22

Director’s Level Appeal had exhausted his administrative

23

remedies, plaintiff had sufficiently exhausted his administrative

24

remedies.

25

The Magistrate Judge

Although Sapp upheld prison officials’ proper screening

26

out of prisoner complaints raised for the first time at the

27

second or third level of review, Sapp did not hold that prison

28

officials’ failure to screen out new claims is sufficient to
3

1

satisfy the exhaustion requirements under PLRA.

See 42 U.S.C §

2

1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison

3

conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal

4

law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other

5

correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

6

available are exhausted.”).

7

the PLRA requires “proper exhaustion,” which “demands compliance

8

with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules.”

9

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-93 (2006).

More importantly, exhaustion under

At the time of the

10

incidents at issue in this case, plaintiff was required to file

11

his initial inmate grievance “within 15 working days of the event

12

or decision being appealed.”

13

3084.6(c) (2009); Sapp, 623 F.3d at 818.

14

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §

Here, plaintiff first raised his complaint about the

15

catheter incident in the Director’s Level Review he filed on

16

December 19, 2006, which was over three months after the catheter

17

incident.

18

plaintiff’s catheter claim at the Director’s Level Review,

19

plaintiff would not have been able to initiate a new grievance

20

for that claim because the time allowed to do so had long

21

expired.

22

officials’ failure to screen out his catheter claim and cannot

23

sidestep the administrative deadlines enforced through the PLRA

24

by raising new issues in an existing appeal.

25

U.S. at 95 (requiring proper exhaustion, including compliance

26

with administrative deadlines, because otherwise “a prisoner

27

wishing to bypass available administrative remedies could simply

28

file a late grievance without providing any reason for failing to

Even if the prison officials had screened out

Plaintiff was therefore not harmed by the prison

4

Cf. Woodford, 548

1

file on time”); see also Henderson v. Rodriguez, Civ. No.

2

1:08-0188-LJO-DLB, 2009 WL 817750, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27,

3

2009) (rejecting argument that prison officials should have

4

advised the plaintiff that he improperly added new issues at the

5

first or second level appeals).

6

Accordingly, because plaintiff failed to exhaust his

7

administrative remedies with respect to his Eight Amendment claim

8

against Dr. Athanassious based on the catheter incident, the

9

court will grant Dr. Athanassious’s motion for summary judgment

10

on that claim.

11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) the Magistrate Judge’s

12

Findings and Recommendations of July 8, 2011, be, and the same

13

hereby are, adopted only to the extent they are consistent with

14

this Order; and (2) Dr. Athanassious’s motion for summary

15

judgment be, and same hereby is, GRANTED.

16

DATED:

September 1, 2011

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5