Motuapuaka v. San Mateo County Jail et al

Filing 19

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, 13 14 No. C-10-4733 TEH (PR) SIONE MOTUAPUAKA, v. SAN MATEO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at Centinela State 19 Prison in Imperial, California, has filed a pro se complaint under 20 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that San Mateo County Sheriff’s Deputy 21 Louis Fuentes (“Fuentes”) was deliberately indifferent to his safety 22 while he was detained at that facility. 23 Fuentes filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 24 administrative remedies, or, in the alternative, a motion for 25 summary judgment. 26 was extended to December 7, 2011. 27 plaintiff sought an indefinite extension of time to conduct further 28 discovery. On June 20, 2011, defendant Plaintiff’s deadline for filing his opposition Instead of filing an opposition, For the reasons set forth below, this action is 1 DISMISSED without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 2 administrative remedies. 3 I. 4 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) amended 5 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with 6 respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other 7 Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other 8 correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 9 available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district 11 court. 12 Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). 13 administrative remedies must be exhausted and such remedies “need 14 not meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy[] and 15 effective.’” 16 Booth, 532 U.S. at 739). 17 “proper exhaustion” of available administrative remedies, “which 18 means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so 19 properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” 20 Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 (emphasis in original and internal 21 quotations and citations omitted). in original and internal 22 quotations and citations omitted). The exhaustion requirement must 23 be satisfied prior to the commencement of the action; exhaustion 24 subsequent to the filing of suit will not suffice 25 Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199–1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (action must be 26 dismissed without prejudice unless prisoner exhausted available 27 administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if prisoner fully 28 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v. Under the PLRA, all available Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (citing The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement requires 2 McKinney v. 1 exhausts while the suit is pending). 2 the PLRA exhaustion requirement is to “afford[] corrections 3 officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally 4 before allowing the initiation of a federal case.” 5 at 525. 6 Broadly stated, the purpose of Porter, 534 U.S. Failure to exhaust under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative 7 defense. 8 defendant has the burden of raising and proving the absence of 9 exhaustion in an unenumerated 12(b) motion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Id. at 1119–20. In 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California A deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative 11 remedies under § 1997e(a), the court may look beyond the pleadings 12 and decide disputed issues of fact. 13 prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies, the proper 14 remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice. 15 Id. If the court concludes a Id. at 1120. II. 16 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1073 provides county jail inmates 17 with a right to “appeal and have resolved grievances” relating to 18 their confinement. 19 Section 1073, the San Mateo County Maguire Correctional Facility 20 (“MCF”)has established a Prisoner Grievance System. 21 undisputed that the administrative remedies available to plaintiff 22 and at issue here are those of the San Mateo County MCF. 23 time of the incident, prisoner grievances were handled according to 24 Section 06.08 of the San Mateo County MCF’s Policy and Procedures 25 Manual. 26 27 28 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 1073(a). Pursuant to It is At the Doc. #10, Reid Decl. at ¶ 8 and Exh. 5. Section 06.08 requires an inmate to first attempt to resolve the grievance informally with a line staff member. 3 If the 1 problem cannot be resolved on the staff level, the inmate must 2 complete an Inmate Grievance Form and, where the grievance claims 3 inappropriate staff behavior, submit the grievance to the Housing 4 Sergeant. 5 the grievance to the Watch Commander. 6 provide the inmate with a written response. 7 the Watch Commander’s decision to the Detention Division Captain 8 (Facility Commander), who will issue a final decision. The Housing Sergeant will review, reply to, or forward 9 The inmate may appeal Id. III. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California The Watch Commander shall Here, plaintiff admits that he failed to exhaust all his 11 administrative remedies, Doc. #1 at 2, and the record reflects that 12 plaintiff has not filed any grievances at San Mateo County MCF, Doc. 13 #10, Reid Decl. at ¶ 9. 14 Quentin State Prison rendered him unable to exhaust all his 15 administrative remedies. 16 plaintiff’s safety took place on November 10, 2009. 17 record indicates that plaintiff remained at San Mateo County MCF for 18 another five months, and was not transferred to San Quentin State 19 Prison until March 12, 2010. 20 2. 21 file a grievance. 22 County MCF and waiting until he was transferred to another prison to 23 file his suit, plaintiff deprived San Mateo County MCF correctional 24 officials the “time and opportunity to address complaints internally 25 before allowing the initiation of a federal case”, which is the 26 purpose of the PLRA exhaustion requirement. 27 525. 28 Plaintiff states that his transfer to San Defendant’s alleged indifference to Id. at 3. The Doc. #10, Reid Decl. at ¶ 5 and Exh. Plaintiff had at least five months at San Mateo County MCF to By failing to raise his grievance at San Mateo Porter, 534 U.S. at Plaintiff's action must be dismissed without prejudice. See 4 1 Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120. 2 IV. 3 After defendants filed their summary judgment motion on June 20, 2011, the court granted plaintiff two generous extensions 5 of time to file his opposition to December 7, 2011, and was advised 6 that no further extensions of time would be granted. 7 12, 2011, plaintiff nevertheless sought an indefinite extension of 8 time to conduct additional discovery. 9 waiting on declarations which he had requested from third parties in 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 4 March 2011, and that he planned to request defendant’s work records. 11 Plaintiff’s request for more time is denied as not warranted. 12 has had ample time to conduct discovery and the information sought 13 would not preclude summary judgment. 14 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (party seeking continuance to oppose 15 summary judgment under Rule 56(f) must make clear what information 16 is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment). 17 On December Plaintiff stated that he was Cf. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d V. 18 For the reasons set forth below, this action is DISMISSED 19 without prejudice. 20 moot and close the file. 21 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions as IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 DATED 03/27/2012 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 25 26 G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.10\Motuapuaka-10-4733-dismiss-failure to exhaust.wpd 27 28 He 5

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?