Fletcher v. Corizon Health Services

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM DECISION. In his request for the Court to reconsider its ruling on the exhaustion issue, Fletcher makes the same arguments the Court specifically addressed and rejected in its earlier-filed decision. Fletcher offers no reason to alter th at analysis.Because Fletcher has failed to exhaust the grievance procedures, this lawsuit must be dismissed and his remaining motions denied. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

WILLIAM FLETCHER,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00532-BLW
Plaintiff,
vs.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES;
MICHAEL BLURTON; BOBETTE
WHITING; and ANDREW
THUERNAGLE,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to reconsider filed by defendants, and several
motions filed by plaintiff William Fletcher. The motions are fully briefed and at issue.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion for reconsideration, deny
Fletcher’s motions, and dismiss this case.
ANALYSIS
Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider
Plaintiff William Fletcher is an inmate incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional
Institution operated by the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC). His lawsuit claims
he received inadequate dental care while incarcerated. By making him wait four weeks
for dental care and then extracting his teeth in lieu of alternative procedures, Fletcher
contends defendants were negligent, committed medical malpractice, and provided
Memorandum Decision – page 1

constitutionally inadequate dental care. His lawsuit contains a § 1983 claim and various
state law claims for negligence and medical malpractice.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the entire
case on the ground that Fletcher failed to exhaust the grievance procedure set up by the
IDOC. The Court interpreted the motion more narrowly, holding that it only sought to
dismiss Fletcher’s § 1983 claim. In its decision, the Court dismissed the § 1983 claim
because Fletcher failed to exhaust the IDOC’s grievance procedures. See Memorandum
Decision (Dkt. No. 41).
Defendants have now filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that their original
motion sought to dismiss the entire case, including the state law claims for negligence
and malpractice. After reviewing the original briefing, the Court agrees.
Idaho’s exhaustion requirement is co-extensive with the federal requirement
contained in the Prison Liability Reform Act (PLRA). See Butters v. Valdez, 241 P.3d 7,
12 (Id.Ct.App. 2010) (finding the case law interpreting the PLRA “persuasive” and
holding that “the exhaustion requirement under I.C. § 19–4206(1) demands that the
procedural and filing deadlines of a prison’s administrative remedy process be complied
with”). Thus, Fletcher’s state law claims must be dismissed for the same reasons stated
in the Court’s earlier decision. The Court will therefore grant the motion for
reconsideration and issue a separate Judgment dismissing this case in its entirety. 1

1

Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment if
necessary but that motion is moot given the decision set forth above.
Memorandum Decision – page 2

Fletcher’s Motions
Plaintiff Fletcher has filed (1) a request for ADR; (2) a motion for reconsideration
of the Court’s decision discussed above finding a failure to exhaust the IDOC’s grievance
procedures; (3) a request for relief seeking a judgment in the sum of $850,000; and (4) a
request to enter final judgment.
In his request for the Court to reconsider its ruling on the exhaustion issue,
Fletcher makes the same arguments the Court specifically addressed and rejected in its
earlier-filed decision. Fletcher offers no reason to alter that analysis. Because Fletcher
has failed to exhaust the grievance procedures, this lawsuit must be dismissed and his
remaining motions denied. The Court will enter a separate Judgment denying Fletcher’s
motions.

DATED: November 29, 2016

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Memorandum Decision – page 3