Bell v. Williams et al

Filing 205

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/17/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VINCENT KEITH BELL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
EXHAUSTION

v.
SERGEANT YVETTE WILLIAMS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 191, 199, 204

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-01245-SI

12
13

Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for (1) his

14

First Amendment Retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 that the discipline imposed and carried

15

out by Sergeant Williams was retaliation for Mr. Bells’ sexual harassment grievance against Deputy

16

Leung; and (2) his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of

17

1973 that he was denied reasonable accommodations related to toileting when he was placed in the

18

safety cell.

19

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996)

20

(“PLRA”), amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to

21

prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any

22

jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are

23

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of

24

the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

25

739 (2001)).

26

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing and the grievances filed by Mr. Bell and

27

concludes that he exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the retaliation claim. Mr.

28

Bell’s grievances complained that the discipline should not have been aggravated, that the cell

1

extraction and placement in the safety cell was “torture and torment . . . to intimidate and threaten

2

Bell to not get a response or push his grievance on Deputy Leung for sexual harassment on 1-17-

3

18,” and that Mr. Bell’s placement in the safety cell was “abnormal satanic behavior motivated by

4

retaliation.” These grievances embrace Mr. Bell’s retaliation claim against Sergeant Williams.
The Court agrees with defendants that Mr. Bell did not exhaust the ADA and Rehabilitation

6

Act claims with respect to toileting in the safety cell. None of the grievances complain that Mr. Bell

7

was not provided with toileting assistance in the safety cell or otherwise complained about the lack

8

of an accessible toilet in the safety cell. The Court also finds that Mr. Bell has not demonstrated

9

that exhaustion is excused on the ground that the grievance process was “unavailable.” However,

10

Mr. Bell may testify about his experience with toileting while in the safety cell insofar as that is

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

relevant to his claim that his placement in the safety cell was punitive.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: March 17, 2022

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2