Porter v. Neotti et al
Filing
68
ORDER Denying 11 Application for Temporary Restraining Order and setting evidentiary hearing for Motion for Preliminary Injunction. An evidentiary hearing is set for 9:00 a.m. on December 28, 2011 and a Status Conference will occur at 11:00 a.m. on December 22, 2011. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 12/15/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ecs)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RYAN E. PORTER,
Case No. 11cv01050 BTM (BLM)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND SETTING
EVIDENTIARY HEARING FOR
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
v.
13
14
15
GEORGE NEOTTI, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s “Motion for
18
Emergency Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporairly [sic] Restraining Order” (Dkt. No. 11).
19
The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as both an application for a temporary restraining order
20
and a motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
21
Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order, DEFERS RULING on Plaintiff’s motion
22
for a preliminary injunction, and ORDERS the parties to appear for an evidentiary hearing on
23
the issue of whether Plaintiff sufficiently has exhausted his available administrative remedies.
24
25
Facts
26
On May 12, 2011, Plaintiff Ryan E. Porter, a state prisoner incarcerated at Richard J.
27
Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
28
§ 1983 claiming that the conditions of his incarceration have violated and continue to violate
1
11cv01050 BTM (BLM)
1
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
2
Plaintiff alleges that in March 2010 he began to find “feces, dirt, razor blades, dead
3
mice, disinfectant, [and] bleach” in the food provided to Sensitive Needs Yard (“SNY” or
4
“protective custody”) inmates such as himself. Plaintiff further alleges that this contamination
5
is caused by “general population” inmates, who are responsible for preparing the food
6
provided to the SNY inmates and who have a motive and an opportunity to contaminate the
7
SNY inmates’ food. Plaintiff claims that he has suffered “severe [medical] complications” (id.
8
at 8) resulting from ingesting contaminated food beginning in June 2010, for which he has
9
received inadequate medical attention.1 Plaintiff alleges that RJD personnel have retaliated
10
against him on numerous occasions as a result of his efforts to file administrative appeals
11
relating to the conditions of his incarceration. The alleged retaliation includes denial of mail,
12
denial of medical care, denial of food, unwarranted cell searches and confiscation of
13
property, and on one occasion a severe beating by multiple prison guards. Plaintiff alleges
14
that the contamination of SNY food is ongoing, as are his medical problems. Lastly, Plaintiff
15
claims that RJD staff have deliberately obstructed the processing of his administrative
16
appeals.
17
On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed the present motion (Dkt. No. 11), in which he
18
makes two requests: First, Plaintiff requests an “order preventing the ‘general population’
19
inmates from making, preparing, handling, and delivering ‘protective custody’ inmates[’] food”
20
(Dkt. No. 11 at 5), and instead “allow[ing] ‘protective custody inmates to make and handle
21
and prepare ‘protective custody’ inmates[’] own food[] or order[ing] the ‘culinary free staff’ to
22
make, prepare, and handle ‘protective custody’ inmates[’] food at all times” (id. at 13).
23
Second, Plaintiff requests an order preventing “the defendants from denying emergency
24
medical care, . . . retaliation by delaying legal mail, unwarranted cell searches and body
25
[searches], and illegal confiscation of personal property, where the only intent is to harass.”
26
1
27
28
Specifically, Plaintiff claims that by the first week of November 2010 he began to
experience severe abdominal pain, severe dizzyness, severe bloating and fullness making
it painful to eat and drink water, green and chalky bowel movements, and painful indigestion.
Plaintiff claims that he has collapsed multiple times since the fall of 2010 as a result of his
illness.
2
11cv01050 BTM (BLM)
1
(Id. at 2.)
2
Defendants’ arguments in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion include their contentions that
3
Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Dkt. No. 60 at 3-5) and that
4
Plaintiff has failed to allege he will suffer irreparable injury (id. at 8-9).
5
6
Discussion
7
The same standards generally apply to temporary restraining orders and preliminary
8
injunctions. Credit Bureau Connection, Inc. v. Pardini, 726 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1114 (E.D. Cal.
9
2010). Thus, a plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order “must establish that he is likely
10
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
11
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the
12
public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
13
14
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., “exhaustion
15
of available administrative remedies is required for any suit challenging prison conditions, not
16
just for suits under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (emphasis
17
added). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other
18
critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. at 90. Defendants contend that because Plaintiff has not
19
exhausted his available administrative remedies, he cannot proceed on any of his claims and
20
therefore cannot establish that “he is likely to succeed on the merits.”
21
In the present case, Plaintiff is required to pursue his grievances through the system
22
established by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation before raising
23
those claims in Federal court. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084 et seq. In order to
24
exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed
25
through several levels of appeal: (1) informal review, (2) first formal written appeal on a CDC
26
602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4)
27
third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and
28
Rehabilitation (“Director”). See Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal.1997)
3
11cv01050 BTM (BLM)
1
(citing Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision from the Director’s level of review
2
satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38. Plaintiff
3
conceded at the November 22, 2011 hearing that he has not received a decision from the
4
Director’s level of review on any appeals addressing the issues contained in the present
5
motion.
6
Plaintiff is not required to exhaust administrative remedies under this system if such
7
remedies are “effectively unavailable.” Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.
8
2010). “Failure to exhaust may be excused where [an] inmate takes ‘reasonable and
9
appropriate steps to exhaust [a] claim,’ but is precluded from doing so by the mistake or
10
misconduct of a prison official.” Jacobs v. Woodford, No. 1:08cv00369, 2011 WL 1584429,
11
at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2011) (citing Nunez, 591 F.3d at 1224-25; Ngo v. Woodford, 539
12
F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008)). Specifically, In Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir.
13
2010), the Ninth Circuit held that “improper screening of an inmate’s administrative
14
grievances renders administrative remedies ‘effectively unavailable’ such that exhaustion is
15
not required under the PLRA.” Id. at 823. To show the appeal process is “unavailable,” the
16
inmate must establish (1) that he actually filed a grievance or grievances that, if pursued
17
through all levels of administrative appeals, would have sufficed to exhaust the claim that he
18
seeks to pursue in federal court, and (2) that prison officials screened his grievance or
19
grievances for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by applicable regulations. Id. at
20
823-24.
21
At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has failed to introduce sufficient evidence to
22
establish that he is likely to succeed in proving that administrative remedies were “effectively
23
unavailable” to him. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s application for a temporary
24
restraining order.
25
However, in determining whether Plaintiff has sufficiently exhausted his administrative
26
remedies, “the [C]ourt may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact” in
27
a procedure that is “closely analagous to summary judgment.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d
28
1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). As such, the Court hereby confirms the schedule set forth
4
11cv01050 BTM (BLM)
1
orally at the November 22, 2011 hearing and ORDERS that there shall be an evidentiary
2
hearing at 9:00 a.m. on December 28, 2011, on the issue of whether Plaintiff’s administrative
3
remedies were “effectively unavailable” to him. Additionally, the Court ORDERS that there
4
shall be a status conference at 11:00 a.m. on December 22, 2011. If the Court ultimately
5
determines that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on his argument that he is excused from
6
exhausting his administrative remedies, the Court will schedule a second evidentiary hearing
7
to address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim for preliminary injunctive relief.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2011
HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
11cv01050 BTM (BLM)
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?