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)

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