Ruiz v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 128

ORDER Granting 114 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's 125 , 127 Motions to attach addendum and to extend time are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/7/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:16-cv-00931-APG-VCF Document 128 Filed 03/07/23 Page 1 of 5

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JOHN MANUEL RUIZ,
4

Plaintiff

5 v.
6 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
7
Defendants
8
9

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00931-APG-VCF
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and Denying as Moot
Plaintiff’s Motions to Attach Addendum
and to Extend Time
[ECF Nos. 114, 125, 127]

Plaintiff John Manuel Ruiz is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of

10 Corrections. He sues over events that took place while he was incarcerated at Lovelock
11 Correctional Center (LCC) and then transferred to Northern Nevada Correctional Center
12 (NNCC).
13

In brief, while Ruiz was at LCC, he tore his right bicep tendon when he fell off his top

14 bunk. He alleges he told defendant Samuel Chapman, a correctional officer, about his injury but
15 Chapman refused to call for medical assistance. He was eventually seen days later by Dr. Van
16 Horn, who ordered him to wear an arm sling. He alleges defendants Tara Carpenter and William
17 Sandie, who were both associate wardens, told Van Horn not to treat Ruiz unless Ruiz was
18 dying, due to the financial cost. Despite this alleged directive, Ruiz was transferred from LCC to
19 NNCC within five days of the accident and had surgery on his torn tendon about two weeks later.
20 Ruiz alleges that defendant Karen Gedney, a doctor at NNCC, directed the doctor who
21 performed the surgery to remove the tendon rather than repair it, again due to financial
22
23

Case 2:16-cv-00931-APG-VCF Document 128 Filed 03/07/23 Page 2 of 5

1 considerations. Based on these allegations, I allowed a claim of Eighth Amendment deliberate
2 indifference to proceed against Chapman, Carpenter, Sandie, and Gedney. ECF No. 15.1
3

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ruiz failed to exhaust his

4 administrative remedies. They also argue that no genuine dispute remains that they were not
5 deliberately indifferent or, alternatively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Ruiz
6 opposed and, after briefing was completed, moved for leave to add a declaration from his former
7 cellmate regarding the incident where he fell off his bunk and Chapman allegedly refused to call
8 for medical assistance. The defendants opposed this motion based in part on its untimeliness. In
9 response, Ruiz moved to extend time to explain the late filing.
10

I grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Ruiz did not exhaust his

11 administrative remedies. None of Ruiz’s grievances asserted that Chapman refused to call for
12 medical assistance, that Carpenter and Sandie told Dr. Van Horn not to treat Ruiz, or that
13 Gedney told the surgeon to remove the tendon. I deny as moot Ruiz’s motions to supplement the
14 record and to extend time because the affidavit he attaches to his motion does not relate to his
15 failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
16 I. ANALYSIS
17

Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows “there is no genuine dispute as to

18 any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
19 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.”
20 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine if “the evidence
21 is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
22
23

1

I also allowed this claim to proceed against Robert LeGrand and Marsha Johns, but I later
dismissed these two defendants because Ruiz failed to serve them. ECF Nos. 15; 112.
2

Case 2:16-cv-00931-APG-VCF Document 128 Filed 03/07/23 Page 3 of 5

1

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of

2 the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence
3 of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The
4 burden then shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a
5 genuine issue of material fact for trial. Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc., 911 F.3d 989, 992 (9th
6 Cir. 2018) (“To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must produce evidence of a
7 genuine dispute of material fact that could satisfy its burden at trial.”). I view the evidence and
8 reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Zetwick v. Cnty. of
9 Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 440-41 (9th Cir. 2017).
10

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), “[n]o action shall be brought with

11 respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
12 confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as
13 are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies prior
14 to filing a lawsuit is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002).
15

The PLRA requires “proper exhaustion” of an inmate’s claims. Woodford v. Ngo, 548

16 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). The inmate must “use all steps the prison holds out, enabling the prison to
17 reach the merits of the issue.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). The
18 inmate must comply “with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no
19 adjudication system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the
20 course of its proceedings.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-91.
21

Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007).

22 Consequently, the defendants bear the burden of proving the inmate failed to exhaust an
23 available administrative remedy. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc).

3

Case 2:16-cv-00931-APG-VCF Document 128 Filed 03/07/23 Page 4 of 5

1 If the defendants do so, the burden shifts to the inmate to show “there is something particular in
2 his case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively
3 unavailable to him by showing that the local remedies were ineffective, unobtainable, unduly
4 prolonged, inadequate, or obviously futile.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.
5 2015) (quotation omitted). The defendants bear the “ultimate burden” of proving a failure to
6 exhaust. Id.
7

Ruiz filed multiple grievances related to his torn tendon. But none of those grievances

8 asserted that Chapman refused to call for medical assistance, that Carpenter and Sandie told Dr.
9 Van Horn not to treat Ruiz, or that Gedney told the surgeon to remove the tendon. In grievance
10 number 20062981952, Ruiz requested to be returned to the infirmary after being discharged
11 following his surgery. ECF Nos. 114-1 at 21-26, 47; 123 at 39-40, 42; 123-1 at 1-3. In grievance
12 number 20062984005, Ruiz requested to be seen by a doctor following his surgery and he
13 requested copies of his medical kites. ECF Nos. 114-1 at 28-31, 46; 123 at 25-29, 33-37.
14 Grievance number 20062998332 involved Ruiz’s request for an MRI, a second opinion on
15 whether another surgery could repair his arm, and complaints that the surgery was unsuccessful.
16 ECF Nos. 114-1 at 38-40; 123 at 5-13, 17-22. Grievance number 20062985193 involved Ruiz
17 complaining that the surgery was unsuccessful. ECF No. 114-1 at 44-45. Although Ruiz
18 complained about the surgery being unsuccessful, he did not assert that Gedney told the surgeon
19 to remove the tendon.2 In grievance number 20063050153, Ruiz complained that the medical
20 providers would tell him that he would be seen but never called him for an appointment, and he
21 requested to be seen by an outside surgeon. ECF No. 123-1 at 5-11. Although Ruiz’s medical
22
23

2

In any event, Ruiz’s medical records from the surgery indicate that his tendon was not
removed. ECF No. 116-8 at 8, 14-15, 18-19.
4

Case 2:16-cv-00931-APG-VCF Document 128 Filed 03/07/23 Page 5 of 5

1 kites would not count as grievances, I note that the kites also do not assert the allegations at issue
2 in this case. ECF Nos. 116-2; 123 at 15, 30-32, 41; 123-1 at 21; 123-2 at 5, 7-15, 17-30; 123-3 at
3 1-22; 123-4 at 5; 123-5 at 3, 5-16. Ruiz does not present any evidence or argument that the
4 grievance system was unavailable to him. His ability to file grievances shows it was available.
5

I therefore grant the defendants’ summary judgment motion because no genuine dispute

6 remains that Ruiz did not exhaust his administrative remedies for any of his claims in this case. I
7 deny as moot Ruiz’s motion to supplement the record because the affidavit he attaches to his
8 motion does not relate to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See ECF No. 125 at 2-5
9 (affidavit by former cellmate regarding Chapman’s alleged refusal to call for help). I also deny
10 as moot Ruiz’s related motion to extend time to file the affidavit.
11 II. CONCLUSION
12

I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.

13 114) is GRANTED.
14

I FURTHER ORDER that the plaintiff’s motions to attach addendum and to extend time

15 (ECF Nos. 125, 127) are DENIED as moot.
16

I FURTHER ORDER the clerk of court to enter judgment in favor of defendants Samuel

17 Chapman, Tara Carpenter, William Sandie, and Karen Gedney, and against plaintiff John
18 Manuel Ruiz, and to close this case.
19

DATED this 7th day of March, 2023.

20
21

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23

5