Covert v. Graham et al
Filing
64
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 50 Motion to Dismiss (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7 JAMES W. COVERT,
Plaintiff,
8
9
vs.
10 R. GRAHAM, et al.,
Case No: C 06-6626 SBA (pr)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
Dkt. 50
Defendants.
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff James Covert, a California prisoner now incarcerated at High Desert State
15
Prison, brings the instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at San
16
Quentin State Prison (SQSP), where he was previously housed. The Amended Complaint
17
alleges that Defendants, Sgt. Harrison and Lt. Graham, were deliberately indifferent to
18
Plaintiff’s health and safety following their alleged failure to provide him with properly
19
fitting shoes while he was in administrative segregation. Plaintiff alleges that the ill-fitting
20
shoes caused him to trip and fall down a flight of stairs and injure himself.
21
The parties are presently before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
22
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h). Dkt. 50. The gravamen of Defendants’
23
motion is that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison
24
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”). Having read and considered the papers filed in
25
connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the
26
motion for the reasons set forth below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter
27
suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ.
28
L.R. 7-1(b).
1
I.
BACKGROUND
2
A.
3
In January 2005, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation in Carson Block
4
at San Quentin. Am. Compl. ¶ 17, Dkt. 14. Upon his arrival there, Plaintiff was given the
5
choice of either size 8 or size 12 shoes, even though he wears a size 9 1/2. Id. Plaintiff
6
alleges that “for months” he complained, without success, to tier officers Sgt. Harrison and
7
Lt. Graham that his shoes were too big. Id.
8
9
OVERVIEW
On April 16, 2005, Plaintiff was walking to the showers when his right shoe slipped
off. Id. He then stepped on the shoe, which caused him to twist his ankle and fall down the
10
stairs. Id. On October 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court against Sgt. Harrison and
11
Lt. Graham, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his safety as a result of their
12
alleged failure to ensure that Plaintiff was given properly fitting shoes. Both before and
13
after the fall on April 16, 2005, Plaintiff filed two overlapping administrative grievances
14
relating to the matter of the shoes sizes available to inmates in administrative segregation.
15
As a prerequisite to filing a civil rights lawsuit under the PLRA, a prisoner must first
16
exhaust available administrative remedies. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736 (2001)
17
(citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). “The California Department of Corrections [and
18
Rehabilitation] provides a four-step grievance process for prisoners who seek review of an
19
administrative decision or perceived mistreatment: [1] an informal level, [2] a first formal
20
level, [3] a second formal level, and [4] the Director’s level.” Vaden v. Summerhill, 449
21
F.3d at 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2006); see Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5 (2005). The issue
22
presented herein is whether Plaintiff fully exhausted his claim that Defendants’ failure to
23
provide him proper fitting shoes led to his fall. A summary of Plaintiff’s two, overlapping
24
grievances is set forth below.
25
26
27
28
-2-
1
B.
2
SUMMARY OF GRIEVANCES
1.
3
No. SQ-05-814
a)
Informal Level Review
4
On April 4, 2005, before the accident mentioned above, Plaintiff submitted inmate
5
Grievance No. SQ-05-814 (“SQ-05-814”), which he styled as a “class action appeal about
6
‘conditions of confinement’ in ‘the hole’ . . . .” Brady Decl. Ex. A, Dkt. 58-3. The
7
grievance set forth fourteen separate issues, such as sanitation problems, the lack of stamps
8
and paper, the lack of warm food, among other concerns. Issue no. 8 pertained to the
9
matter of shoes, stating: “Prisoners aren’t allowed their personal shoes, and are forced to
10
11
wear either a size 8, or, size 12 pair of shoes.” Id. at 3.
On April 9, 2005, Defendant Harrison responded to Plaintiff’s informal grievance
12
and the numerous issues contained therein. With respect to Plaintiff’s complaint regarding
13
his shoes, Defendant Harrison stated: “While you are housed in ad seg [administrative
14
segregation] you cannot have your personal shoes.” Boerum Decl. Ex. B at AG-11, 16,
15
Dkt. 51-2.
16
17
b)
First Level Review
Upon receiving Defendant Harrison’s response, Plaintiff sought review at the first
18
formal level on April 9, 2005. Id. at AG 11. On May 13, 2005, Defendant Graham issued
19
a lengthy memorandum indicating that he had interviewed Plaintiff on that date regarding
20
the fourteen issues initially presented in his informal grievance. Id. at AG-07. With respect
21
to Plaintiff’s shoe claim, Defendant Graham stated as follows:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In his appeal, Inmate Covert stated prisoners aren’t allowed
their personal shoes and are forced to wear either a size 8 or a
size 12 pair of shoes. I explain [sic] to Covert, for security
reasons, inmates housed in Ad/Seg are not allowed to have their
personal shoes. I told Covert that his personal shoes would be
held in his “hot” property and they would be returned to him
upon his release from Ad/Seg. I informed Covert [that] staff
make every attempt to get the correct size soft sole shoes for
inmates when they arrive in Ad/Seg. If the correct size cannot
be found, then a substitute size is issued that the inmate is able
to wear. Inmate Covert said during the interview that he now
has the correct size shoe and this is no longer an issue in his
appeal.
-3-
1
Id. at AG-08, AG-09.
2
3
c)
Second Level Review
Dissatisfied with Defendant Graham’s response, Plaintiff submitted a request for
4
second level review on June 10, 2005, in which he reiterated his litany of complaints. Id. at
5
AG-12. With regard to the shoe issue, he alleged that:
9
This is a serious health & safety issue that needs to be resolved.
As I, personally, because of shoe 3 sizes too big, fell down the
stairs seriously injuring myself and still have not recovered. It
took me over 3 months to finally find a prisoner that was
paroling that agreed to trade me shoes. Unfortunately, for me,
the damage has been done. But, hopefully another Prisoner can
be spared the trauma.
10
Id. On July 11, 2005, the Warden issued a Second Level Appeal Response. Id. at AG-04.
11
He found that Plaintiff’s complaints, including his shoe issue, were adequately addressed
12
following the interview conducted by Defendant Graham on May 13, 2005. Id. at AG-05.
6
7
8
13
14
d)
Director’s Level Review
On July 21, 2005, Plaintiff appealed to the director’s level, which is the final level of
15
administrative review. Brady Decl. Ex. A ¶ H, Dkt. 58-3. Plaintiff acknowledged that
16
“[a]ll of these issues were . . . addressed at the first level by staff,” but that other issues
17
affecting the “conditions of confinement . . . have become worse.” Id. He noted, however,
18
that new razors had been provided and that the “the policy regarding personal shoes” had
19
been changed since his commencement of the appeals process. Id. On October 11, 2005,
20
N. Grannis, Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch, found that Plaintiff’s “specific
21
complaints” had been addressed and that no further relief would be afforded. Boerum Decl.
22
Ex. B at AG-02, AG-03.
23
24
25
2.
No. SQ-05-1563
a)
Informal Level Review
On May 6, 2005, during the pendency of his first grievance, but after the accident
26
had occurred, Plaintiff filed a second grievance, Grievance No. SQ-05-1563 (“SQ-05-
27
1563”). Brady Decl. Ex. B, Dkt. 58-4. In his new grievance, Plaintiff alleged that on April
28
16, 2005, he fell down a flight of stairs due to the wrong shoe size having been given to
-4-
1
him. Id. As relief, Plaintiff requested as follows: “That Prisoners be allowed to wear their
2
personal tennis shoes until proper fitting shoes can be obtained. [sic] And that necessary
3
steps be taken to insure [sic] that no other Prisoners[’] health and safety be put in jeopardy
4
by the dangerous conditions that currently exist.” Id.
5
On May 20, 2005, Defendant Harrison issued an informal level response, which
6
stated that he had interviewed Plaintiff in connection with his other appeal, and that he
7
confirmed that he now had “the right shoe size.” Id. In addition, Defendant Harrison stated
8
that inmates “can have their own shoes if there are no other shoes available.” Id.
9
10
b)
First Level of Review
On May 31, 2005, Plaintiff sought first level review. Plaintiff reiterated that he had
11
complained about not having the correct shoe size, and that he was finally able to obtain the
12
correct size shoes because he traded shoes with another prisoner who was being paroled.
13
Boerum Dec. Ex. C at AG-17, AG-20. Although able to “trade [his] shoes with another
14
prisoner who was paroling,” Plaintiff complained that Prisoners are forced to walk down
15
stairs that are often slimy, dirty, with their arms handcuffed behind them with no help.” Id.
16
On June 1, 2005, the Appeals Coordinator’s office screened out (rejected) Plaintiff’s
17
first level appeal on the grounds that Plaintiff “failed to add any additional information to
18
submit [his] appeal for the formal level review.” Boerum Dec. Ex. C at AG-17, AG-20.
19
Plaintiff resubmitted his first formal level appeal on June 12, 2005. Id. at AG-17.
20
He complained that the matter of slimy stairs had not been addressed at the informal level
21
and that “these dangerous conditions still exist.” Id. at AG-19. He also complained about
22
inmates in administrative segregation not being allowed to wear their personal shoes, and
23
stated: “It is only a matter of time, before someone else is seriously injured falling down
24
these stairs. That is what this appeal is trying to prevent.” Id.
25
On July 12, 2005, Lt. J. Reid granted Plaintiff’s first level appeal, based on the May
26
23, 2005, memorandum by Associate Warden Petrakis. That memorandum announced a
27
change in policy to allow prisoners to keep their personal shoes while in Ad Seg. Id. at
28
AG-18, AG-22.
-5-
1
c)
2
Second Level Review
Plaintiff submitted a request for second level review, dated July 17, 2005, which was
3
stamped “rec’d” on July 19, 2005. Brady Decl. Ex. B at 2. The appeal, in its entirety,
4
states as follows:
7
The stairs which get slimy are still a safety issue for Prisoners
having to walk down them with their hands behind their backs,
with no help, whatsoever. This issue has not been addressed yet
in this appeal. I raise this issue of slimy stairs in the [at] the
informal level.
8
Id. Plaintiff’s request for second level review made no mention of any shoe-related issues.
9
According to Plaintiff’s attorney, this appeal was “returned without explanation.” Brady
5
6
10
Decl. ¶ 8.1
11
d)
12
Director Level Review
On July 23, 2005, Plaintiff filed for director’s level review in which he claimed:
I filed an appeal, Log No. 05-1563, and I complained about the
stair being wet & slimy and having no assistance with our hands
handcuffed behind our backs. This issue was never addressed
in my appeal and my appeal was returned by the appeals
coordinator stating that I failed to add any additional
information. But there isn’t any additional information to add.
I would like to know what kind of additional information is
required, because I don’t know what is being asked, and I can’t
find the rule to try and understand this demand.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Brady Decl. Ex. C. This appeal was stamped “rec’d” on July 26, 2005. Id. Plaintiff’s
19
Director’s Level appeal was screened out on August 3, 2005, on the ground that the appeal
20
was not completed through the second formal level of review. Grannis Decl. ¶ 8 and Ex. A
21
at 2.
22
23
24
1
Ostensibly because his second level appeal made no mention of the shoe issue,
Plaintiff now asserts, without citation to any authority, that the resubmission of his first
level appeal on June 12, 2005, constitutes another second level appeal. Pl.’s Opp’n at 4.
26 This contention lacks merit. A grievance that has been screened out has not been reviewed
on the merits. See Garcia v. Lamarque, No. C 09-02235 CW, 2011 WL 3516144, at *4
27 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011). Thus, prison staff construed Plaintiff’s resubmission as a
request for first level review, which was granted on July 12, 2005. Boerum Decl. Ex. C at
28 AG 18, AG 22.
25
-6-
1
C.
2
Acting pro se, Plaintiff filed the instant action in this Court on October 24, 2006. He
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3
filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2009. Dkt. 14. On September 1, 2009, the Court
4
issued an Order of Service, finding that Plaintiff had stated cognizable claims for deliberate
5
indifference to his safety as to Defendants Harrison and Graham “stemming from their
6
failure to provide him with properly fitting shoes.” Dkt. 15 at 5.2
7
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust under the
8
PLRA, which the Court granted on March 31, 2010. Dkt. 26, 33. Plaintiff appealed. Dkt.
9
35. On January 25, 2012, the court of appeal issued a Memorandum Decision reversing the
10
dismissal based on the conclusion that “Defendants have not met their burden of proving
11
that Covert’s action should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
12
Id. The court noted Plaintiff’s claim that he had attempted to file appeals at the second
13
level of review for his May 6, 2005 grievance, but that these appeals were never properly
14
processed. In addition, the court found that the declaration from the prison’s appeals
15
coordinator did not provide a sufficient foundation to explain the prison’s record-keeping
16
methods or otherwise address how attempted inmate appeals are tracked or handled.
17
On June 11, 2012, Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, who
18
now is represented by counsel, filed an opposition, and Defendants have filed a reply. Dkt.
19
58, 61. On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a surreply, as directed by the Court. Dkt. 63.
20
The motion is fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication.
21
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
22
A.
23
A motion to dismiss based on a prisoner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies
24
RULE 12(B)
is properly brought as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d
25
2
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for supervisory liability, deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs and violation of due process, with leave to amend.
27 Dkt. 15. On December 4, 2009, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s
amendments were insufficient and dismissed the aforementioned claims with prejudice.
28 Dkt. 22.
26
-7-
1
1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). “In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust non-
2
judicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of
3
fact.” Id. at 1119-20. Where the court looks beyond the pleadings to a factual record,
4
which is “a procedure closely analogous to summary judgment,” the court must assure that
5
the plaintiff has fair notice of his opportunity to develop the record. Id. at 1120 n.14.
6
B.
7
The PLRA provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison
EXHAUSTION UNDER THE PLRA
8
conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in
9
any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are
10
available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C.1997e(a). The purposes of the PLRA’s exhaustion
11
requirement are to: (1) “eliminate unwarranted federal court interference with the
12
administration of prisons;” (2) “afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address
13
complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case;” and, (3) “reduce the
14
quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84-85,
15
(2006).
16
The PLRA requires the inmate to exhaust every level in the administrative process.
17
See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is a prerequisite
18
to the inmate filing a lawsuit. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). The failure
19
to exhaust is an affirmative defense which defendants bear the burden of establishing.
20
Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2012). “Once the defense meets its burden,
21
the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the administrative remedies were unavailable.”
22
Id. Administrative remedies may be deemed “unavailable” where the inmate takes
23
reasonable steps to exhaust but is precluded from exhausting such claim due to a mistake
24
by prison staff. Id.
25
26
27
28
-8-
1
2
3
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
DEFENDANT’S INITIAL BURDEN OF SHOWING NON-EXHAUSTION
1.
Grievance No. SQ-05-814
4
Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s first grievance is insufficient to exhaust his
5
claims in this action. The Court agrees. In SQ-05-814, Plaintiff complained about fourteen
6
separate issues affecting all inmates placed in administrative segregation. One of those
7
issues pertained to the prison’s policy of providing only size 8 or size 12 shoes, and not
8
allowing inmates in administrative segregation to wear their personal shoes. Plaintiff
9
alleged that this practice resulted in his being issued ill-fitting shoes, which, in turn, led to
10
his falling down a flight of stairs. He requested that the “necessary steps be taken to
11
prevent these conditions of confinement from ever occurring again here at San Quentin.”
12
Boerum Decl. Ex. B at AG 11.
13
San Quentin staff responded to Plaintiff’s grievance at the informal level, but
14
Plaintiff was not satisfied and thereafter sought first level of review. Boerum Decl. Ex. B
15
at AG-11. At this level, staff responded to Plaintiff’s multiple issues in greater depth. With
16
regard to the shoe issue, staff explained San Quentin’s policy was not to allow inmates in
17
administrative segregation to wear their personal shoes. Id. at AG-09. During the
18
interview for his first level review, Plaintiff told staff that he now had the correct size
19
footwear. Id. In his subsequent request for second level review, however, Plaintiff alleged
20
that the shoe policy was still at issue, and cited the incident where he fell down the stairs as
21
an example of the seriousness of the matter. Id. at AG-12. Nonetheless, in his final,
22
director’s level appeal, Plaintiff expressed no continuing concern relating to shoes given to
23
inmates in administrative segregation. Brady Decl. Ex. A ¶ H.
24
In his opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute that his director’s level appeal request
25
did not express any issues or concerns relating to shoes. Nonetheless, Plaintiff insists that
26
he did not expressly state in that request that the shoe problem had been resolved, and, in
27
fact, he had alleged that the conditions in administrative segregation had “worsened.” Pl.’s
28
Opp’n at 8. Plaintiff mischaracterizes the record. In actuality, Plaintiff stated that since
-9-
1
initiating the grievance process, many of the conditions “have become worse . . . with the
2
exception of the new razors, and finally a change in the policy regarding personal shoes.”
3
Brady Decl. Ex. A ¶ H (emphasis added). In light of such statement, it is readily apparent
4
that Plaintiff was no longer making any claim relating to the shoes issued to him while in
5
administrative segregation. Accordingly, the Court finds that Grievance SQ-05-814 is
6
insufficient to exhaust Plaintiff’s claims in this action.
7
2.
Grievance No. SQ-05-1563
8
The question remains whether Plaintiff’s second grievance—SQ-05-1563—is
9
sufficient to have administratively exhausted his deliberate indifference claim. The parties
10
dispute whether Plaintiff fully exhausted his shoe claim through the director’s level.
11
Plaintiff asserts that he properly sought second level review but that he never received a
12
response, and therefore, he was compelled to seek review at the director’s level.
13
Defendants, on the other hand, contend that Plaintiff did not wait for a response to his
14
request for second level review, and for that reason, Plaintiff’s director’s level appeal was
15
appropriately screened out.
16
Ultimately, the question of whether Plaintiff prematurely sought director’s level
17
review is inapposite because it is clear that Plaintiff did not exhaust his shoe issue at the
18
second level or director’s level. In his second level appeal, dated July 17, 2005, Plaintiff
19
only complained about the “slimy wet stairs” which “are still a safety issue for Prisoners
20
having to walk down with their hands handcuffed behind their backs with no help
21
whatsoever.” Brady Decl. Ex. B at 2. Notably, Plaintiff made no mention of any ongoing
22
concern with respect to the matter of the size of shoes issued to him or inmates in
23
administrative segregation. Id. Similarly, in his director’s level appeal, dated July 23,
24
2005, Plaintiff again complained only about the “wet & slimy” stairs, without any mention
25
of his shoe issue. Id. Ex. C. Thus, irrespective of whether Defendants properly screened
26
out Plaintiff’s director’s level appeal, the fact remains that neither the director’s level or
27
second level appeal pursued the shoe claim. Thus, the Court finds that SQ-15-1563 is
28
- 10 -
1
insufficient to exhaust his present claim for deliberate indifference based on the failure to
2
provide Plaintiff with the correct size shoes.
3
B.
4
In view of the Court’s determination that Defendants have met their initial burden of
PLAINTIFF’S EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO EXHAUST
5
showing the absence of exhaustion, “the burden shifts to [Plaintiff] to demonstrate the
6
grievance procedure was unavailable.” Albino, 697 F.3d at 1031. Here, Plaintiff argues
7
that, with respect to SQ-15-1563, he received no response to his two second level requests
8
for review, and therefore, was at a loss as to what information was required for prison staff
9
to consider his appeals. Pl.’s Opp’n at 12. This contention lacks merit.
10
As discussed, Plaintiff’s contention that he submitted “two” second level appeals is
11
legally and factually unsupported. Plaintiff’s submission on January 12, 2005, was not a
12
second level appeal; rather, it was Plaintiff’s attempt to rectify the deficiencies that led to
13
the initial screening out of his original first level appeal. Based on the January 12th
14
resubmission, Lt. Reid subsequently granted Plaintiff’s appeal at the first level on July 12,
15
2005. Boerum Decl. Ex. C at AG-22. More specifically, Lt. Reid’s response indicates that
16
on January 12, 2005, he interviewed Plaintiff regarding his concern that inmates in
17
administrative segregation be allowed to wear their personal shoes. Id. Citing a May 23,
18
2005 memorandum by Associate Warden Petrakis changing the prison’s shoe policy, Lt.
19
Reid granted Plaintiff’s appeal. Id. Plaintiff expressed no other concern, aside from
20
requesting earplugs, which Lt. Reid provided. Id. Plaintiff does not dispute having met
21
with Lt. Reid on July 12, 2005, or having received Lt. Reid’s response. Indeed, Plaintiff’s
22
opposition is tellingly devoid of any reference to Lt. Reid’s July 12, 2005 response.
23
In Plaintiff’s subsequent second level appeal submitted on July 17, 2005, Plaintiff
24
complained about the “slimy wet stairs,” but notably omitted any complaints regarding
25
shoes. Brady Decl. Ex. B ¶ F. Plaintiff complains that he never received any response to
26
this particular request and therefore did not know what additional information was required
27
for his appeal. But whether or not Plaintiff received a response is inapposite. The fact
28
remains that Plaintiff abandoned any shoe issues by omitting them from his second level
- 11 -
1
appeal, which complained only about the stairs. To the extent that there were any shoe-
2
related issues remaining following Lt. Reid’s July 12th response to Plaintiff’s resubmitted
3
request for first level review, it was incumbent on Plaintiff to raise those concerns in his
4
July 17th request for second level review. Having failed to do so, Plaintiff cannot
5
legitimately complain that Defendants’ alleged lack of response to the July 17th second
6
level appeal had any bearing on Plaintiff’s omission of any shoe issues from that appeal or
7
his subsequent director’s level appeal.
8
IV.
9
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
10
1.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
11
2.
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: March 20, 2013
______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
N:\Keith\Prisoner\06-6626 - Covert - Order Granting Motion to Dismiss - Exh.docx
27
28
- 12 -
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?