Gibbs v. Farley et al
Filing
49
ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Motion to Dismiss; Scheduling Amended Complaint, Motions terminated: 38 MOTION for Leave to File, 23 MOTION to Dismiss ; Under Rule 12(B); Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
No. C 13-02114 TEH (PR)
KENNETH GIBBS,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION TO DISMISS; SCHEDULING
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
v.
(Doc. ## 23, 38)
T. FARLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
17
Plaintiff Kenneth Gibbs, a state prisoner presently
18
incarcerated at California State Prison–Sacramento, filed the
19
present pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding
20
incidents that took place at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), where
21
he was previously incarcerated.
22
and found Plaintiff had stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force
23
claim.
24
at PBSP.
The Court screened the complaint
The Court ordered the complaint served on four defendants
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case on the
25
26
grounds that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative
27
remedies.
28
Plaintiff has filed an opposition and Defendants have
1
filed a reply.
2
a supplemental complaint.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to file
3
I
4
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) amended 42
5
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).
Under this
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
section, an action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted
11
his available administrative remedies before he filed suit.
12
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002).
13
See
The State of California provides its prisoners the right
14
to appeal administratively “any policy, decision, action,
15
condition, or omission by the [CDCR] or its staff that the inmate .
16
. . can demonstrate as having a material adverse effect upon his or
17
her health, safety, or welfare.”
18
to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a
19
prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal:
20
(1) informal review, submitted on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form;
21
(2) first formal level appeal, to an institution appeals
22
coordinator;(3) second formal level appeal, to the institution
23
warden; and (4) third formal level appeal, to the Director of the
24
CDCR.
25
1264-65 (9th Cir. 2009).
26
level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under §
27
1997e(a).
28
15 C.C.R. § 3084.1(a).
In order
See 15 C.C.R. § 3084.7; Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262,
A final decision from the Director's
Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010).
2
1
In Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.2003),
2
the Ninth Circuit held that a failure to exhaust under § 1997e(a)
3
should be raised by a defendant as an “unenumerated Rule 12(b)
4
motion.”
5
dismiss under the non-enumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil
6
Procedure 12(b) and provided Plaintiff with the appropriate notice
7
pursuant to Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120, n.14 and Woods v. Carey, 684
8
F.3d 934, 940 n.6 (9th Cir. 2012).
9
F.3d ----, 2014 WL 1317141 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014), the Ninth
Pursuant to Wyatt, Defendants here filed their motion to
However, in Albino v. Baca, ---
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Circuit recently overruled Wyatt in part and held that a motion for
11
summary judgment is the appropriate procedural device for pretrial
12
determination of whether administrative remedies have been
13
exhausted.
14
defendant may raise the issue of exhaustion in either (1) a motion
15
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), in the rare event the failure
16
to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, or (2) a motion
17
for summary judgment.
18
under Rule 12(b) is not the appropriate procedural device for
19
pretrial determination of whether administrative remedies have been
20
exhausted.”
21
Albino, at *4.
Following the decision in Albino, a
Id. at *4-5.
“[A]n unenumerated motion
Id. at *4.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED
22
without prejudice to renewing their arguments in support of
23
dismissal by way of a motion for summary judgment as set forth in
24
Albino.
25
26
II
The Court is mindful that Plaintiff concedes that he did
27
not exhaust administrative remedies until after filing this action.
28
3
1
Specifically, Plaintiff states in his declaration in support of his
2
opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss: “I feared filing a
3
grievance prior to this suit for fear of retaliation and being
4
screened out; I have since exhausted these issues.”
5
(Dkt. #37), at ¶¶ 15-16.)
6
showing that the Director’s level appeal decision issued on October
7
1, 2013 – almost six months after Plaintiff filed this action.
8
(See Defs.’ Reply (Dkt. #45), Ex. C.)
9
(See Pl. Decl.
Defendants’ have also submitted evidence
Prior to Albino, failure to exhaust before filing suit
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
would subject the action to dismissal without prejudice to filing a
11
new action once plaintiff had exhausted the prison grievance
12
process.
13
dismissed without prejudice unless prisoner exhausted available
14
administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if prisoner
15
fully exhausts while the suit is pending).
16
proper procedure is unclear.
17
See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201 (action must be
Following Albino, the
The Court need not determine the proper procedure here
18
because, as discussed above, Defendants have not filed a motion for
19
summary judgment pursuant to Albino.
20
holds that a prisoner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement as
21
long as he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing an
22
amended complaint.
23
(9th Cir. 2010) (amended complaint raised new claims which arose
24
after the original complaint was filed); Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d
25
1214, 1220-21 (9th Cir. 2014) (amended complaint raised new claims
26
which arose prior to the filing of the initial complaint).
27
noted above, Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a
28
Further, recent case law
See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006
4
As
1
supplemental complaint.
2
to supplement his complaint to add “[e]vents [that] have occurred
3
since Plaintiff filed his complaint which are similar in nature to
4
the violations alleged in the complaint.”
5
In his motion, Plaintiff states he seeks
(Dkt. 38 at 1.)
In light of Rhodes and Cano, rather than file a
6
supplemental complaint, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to
7
file an amended complaint, which may include the claims found
8
cognizable in his original complaint as well as the claims he seeks
9
to add by way of his proposed supplemental complaint.
Plaintiff is
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
cautioned that the amended complaint may only include claims that
11
have been fully exhausted through the highest level of appeal
12
available to him.
13
Court will screen it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
14
Once the amended complaint is received, the
III
15
In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
16
1.
Plaintiff must file his amended complaint pursuant to
17
the instructions above, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date
18
of this Order.
19
case number used in this order (13-2114 TEH (PR)) and the words
20
AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page.
21
complaint within the designated time and in accordance with this
22
Order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to
23
prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
24
2.
The pleading must include the caption and civil
Failure to file an amended
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint
25
supersedes the original complaint.
26
causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not
27
alleged in the amended complaint.”
28
5
“[A] plaintiff waives all
London v. Coopers & Lybrand,
1
644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).
2
amended complaint are no longer defendants.
3
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).
4
3.
Defendants not named in an
See Ferdik v.
Defendants’ unenumerated motion to dismiss under Rule
5
12(b) is DENIED.
6
motion for summary judgment after the Court has screened
7
Plaintiff’s amended complaint.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
4.
The denial is without prejudice to refiling as a
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental
complaint is DENIED as moot.
5.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff
a blank civil rights form along with his copy of this Order.
This Order terminates docket numbers 23 and 38.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: 04/23/2014
THELTON E. HENDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.13\Gibbs 13-2114 MTD.wpd
26
27
28
6
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?