Springfield v. Unknown

Filing 87

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/29/15 adopting in full, with the minor corrections 76 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Defendants' motion for summary judgment 51 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motio n to dismiss 54 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is granted thirty days after service of this order to file and serve, if he so chooses, a Second Amended Complaint. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:12-cv-2552 KJM AC P

ORDER

VISMAL J. SINGH, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On April 24, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on Federal

21

Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in which they contend plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative

22

remedies as to all claims and all defendants except plaintiff’s due process claim against defendant

23

Lee. On April 25, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On March 24,

25

2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’

26

motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part, that defendants’ motion to

27

dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, that seven defendants be dismissed from this action

28

without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies against them, and
1

1

that this action proceed on plaintiff’s due process and deliberate indifference claims against nine

2

other defendants.1 The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained

3

notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed

4

within twenty-one days. Defendants have filed objections to the findings and recommendations

5

and plaintiff has filed a response to defendants’ objections.

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

7

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court

8

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.2

9

The court writes separately to address defendants’ specific objections, which are limited to the

10

magistrate judge’s findings that plaintiff administratively exhausted claims against eight of nine

11

defendants. Defendants contend (1) plaintiff failed to identify certain defendants known to him at

12

the time he submitted his administrative appeals, as required by applicable regulation; and

13

(2) plaintiff improperly added issues to include certain defendants in appeals after the appeals

14

were submitted for review. ECF No. 82 at 5.

15

Defendants’ first objection centers on defendant Allen. The magistrate judge finds that

16

Appeal Log No. CMF-11-01421 was sufficient to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to

17

plaintiff’s due process and deliberate indifference claims against defendant Allen, among others.

18

Defendants contend plaintiff did not “list or name” defendant Allen in the original grievance

19

submitted in this appeal and that the undisputed facts show that plaintiff “knew the name, title or

20

position, and involvement of Allen when he originally submitted this appeal . . . because a

21

supporting document Plaintiff submitted with this appeal . . . references Allen as chairperson of

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The magistrate judge also recommends that plaintiff be granted thirty days to file a second
amended complaint, if he so chooses, limited to the claims and defendants identified in the
findings and recommendations or, in the alternative, that the action proceed on the first amended
complaint, limited to the claims and defendants that survive defendants’ motions for summary
judgment and to dismiss. ECF No. 76 at 39-40. Neither party has objected to this
recommendation.
2

The court notes that Case No. 2:13-cv-00809 KJM AC P was dismissed without prejudice by
order filed April 28, 2015. See ECF No. 76 at 2 (describing a then-pending recommendation to
dismiss Case No. 2:13-cv-00809 KJM AC P).
2

1

the Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”) hearing . . . that was the subject of the

2

appeal. . . .” ECF No. 82 at 5-6. Defendants’ objection elevates form over substance. The

3

regulation at issue requires an inmate to “list all staff member(s) involved and . . . describe their

4

involvement in the issue.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.2. Defendants acknowledge that

5

plaintiff’s original grievance centered on the August 25, 2011 ICC decision. ECF No. 82 at 6.

6

Plaintiff appended to that grievance the August 25, 2011 ICC decision, which identified all three

7

members of the August 25, 2011 ICC. See ECF No. 35-8 at 16, 28. Defendants’ objections are

8

overruled as to defendant Allen.

9

Defendants next object that Appeal Log No. CMF-11-01421 was insufficient to exhaust

10

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Arnold or Singh because plaintiff improperly added those

11

defendants to the appeal at the second and third levels of review, respectively. ECF No. 82 at 6.

12

As the magistrate judge correctly found, this administrative appeal is properly construed as

13

containing plaintiff’s due process challenge to his custody status at California Medical Facility

14

(CMF) as well as the implications and consequences of that status on the adequacy of his mental

15

health care at CMF. See ECF No. 76 at 21. Defendant Arnold was the decisionmaker at the first

16

level of administrative review, and also was the chairperson of the January 25, 2012 ICC that

17

reviewed plaintiff’s custody status in accordance with a modification order issued after the first

18

level response to Appeal Log No. CMF-11-01421. See ECF No. 35-8 at 22-23, 26, 29. The

19

January 25, 2012 ICC determined that plaintiff would remain at Max custody level and would

20

continue participation in the Department of Mental Health treatment program at the Phase One

21

level based on the “pending validation process, past disciplinary history and classification

22

score. . . .” ECF No. 35-8 at 26. That decision was incorporated into the appeal decision at the

23

second and third levels of administrative review. See ECF No. 35-8 at 8, 26. Similarly,

24

plaintiff’s complaints about the second level decision, which was made by defendant Singh and

25

which confirmed plaintiff’s custody status and mental health treatment status, were incorporated

26

into the decision at the third level of administrative review. See ECF No. 35-8 at 8. The

27

magistrate judge properly found that the relevant regulation permits clarification of an appeal

28

over the course of administrative exhaustion, and that this grievance was sufficient to
3

1

administratively exhaust plaintiff’s claims against both of these defendants. Defendants’

2

objections are overruled as to plaintiff’s due process and deliberate indifference claims against

3

defendants Arnold and Singh.

4

Defendants also object to the magistrate judge’s finding that Appeal Log No. CMF-12-

5

00080 was sufficient to exhaust plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hernandez, Clemons,

6

Williams, Romero, Mebane and Singh. ECF No. 82 at 6-7. Predicating their objection on the

7

fact that plaintiff only identified defendant Lee by name in the original grievance that formed the

8

basis for this administrative appeal, defendants contend it is error to conclude that the identity of

9

correctional staff members and their roles in events that form the basis for an inmate grievance

10

can be ascertained and/or clarified over the course of the administrative process. As discussed

11

above, the magistrate judge properly found that the regulation on which defendants rely permits

12

clarification of an appeal, including the identity of correctional staff involved in events

13

complained of, over the course of the administrative process. For the reasons set forth in the

14

findings and recommendations, this appeal was sufficient to exhaust plaintiff’s claims against

15

these six defendants.3

16

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 24, 2015, are adopted in full, with the

18

following minor corrections: At page 21, line 9 of the findings and recommendations, “TLS” is

19

corrected to “TLR,” and at page 22, line 5, “maximum” is corrected to “maximize”;

20
21

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) is granted in part and denied
in part;

22

3. Defendants Wofford, Cromwell, Duffy, Meier, O’Brian, Konrad and Villasenor are

23

dismissed from this action without prejudice on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

24

administrative remedies against them;

25
3

26
27

Defendants also request an evidentiary hearing should the court find that “the undisputed facts
do not establish that Plaintiff failed to exhaust.” ECF No. 82 at 7. Defendants do not elaborate in
their objections on the nature of the factual issues they contend are in dispute. An evidentiary
hearing is not required.

28
4

1

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54) is granted in part and denied in part;

2

5. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s due process and deliberate indifference claims

3

against defendants Allen, Singh, Arnold, Lee, Hernandez, Clemons, Williams, Romero and

4

Mebane, as construed by the findings and recommendations;

5

6. Plaintiff is granted thirty days after service of this order to file and serve, if he so

6

chooses, a Second Amended Complaint that is limited to the defendants and claims identified by

7

the magistrate judge and as approved by this court. If plaintiff chooses not to file a Second

8

Amended Complaint, this action will proceed on the First Amended Complaint as construed by

9

the findings and recommendations; and

10
11

7. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
DATED: September 29, 2015.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5