Hano v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 201

ORDER Granting 196 Motion for Reconsideration to the extent that the Court STAYS the duty to comply with its 194 Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 7/29/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

DAVID A. HANO,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8

Case No. 2:19-cv-02246-GMN-EJY
ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, EX REL NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Magistrate Judge’s Order.

11

ECF No 196. The Court has considered the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 197), and

12

Defendants’ Reply. ECF No. 199.

13

I.

BACKGROUND

14

Plaintiff is an incarcerated person with a heart condition who, among other claims, has

15

repeatedly alleged he does not timely receive medication prescribed for his condition. On June 23,

16

2022, the undersigned ordered Defendants to file a status report regarding Plaintiff’s Clopidogrel

17

prescription. ECF No. 194 at 4. On July 1, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider the Order

18

arguing that the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which Defendants contend is the operative

19

complaint, makes no mention of Clopidogrel. Defendants argue the Court cannot “grant any relief

20

with respect to Clopidogrel.” Defendants cite Woodford v. Ngo for the proposition that inmates are

21

required to “exhaust administrative remedies” before they may seek relief in federal court. 548 U.S.

22

81, 90-91 (2006).

23

Unresolved in this action is Defendants’ previous Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order

24

regarding Plaintiff’s SAC. ECF No. 177. On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to

25

Withdraw the SAC, ECF No. 174, which the Court granted ordering the First Amended Complaint

26

(“FAC”) operative. ECF No. 177 at 1. Defendants filed an Objection to the Order on March 8,

27

2022. ECF No. 178. Defendants claim that the SAC is the operative complaint for this proceeding.

28

Id. at 9. Defendants’ Objection is pending.
1

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

In Woodford, the Supreme Court explained that exhaustion requires complying with a

3

prison's “critical procedural rules” that is justified by the need to “impos[e] some orderly structure

4

on the course of its proceedings.” 548 U.S. at, 90-91. Where inmates take reasonably appropriate

5

steps to exhaust, but are precluded from doing so by a prison’s erroneous failure to process the

6

grievance, courts have deemed the exhaustion requirement satisfied. Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d

7

1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2017); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (“If prison officials

8

screen out an inmate’s appeals for improper reasons, the inmate cannot pursue the necessary

9

sequence of appeals, and administrative remedies are therefore plainly unavailable.”). See also

10

Fordley v. Lizarraga, 18 F.4th 344, 352 (9th Cir. 2021). Where no administrative relief is available,

11

requiring exhaustion contradicts the PLRA’s purpose and it is not required. See Andres, 867 F.3d at

12

1079.

13

Here, Plaintiff’s FAC alleges he filed a kite for a variety of medications, including

14

Clopidogrel, on October 25, 2019. ECF No. 24-1 at 17. He later alleges he filed an emergency

15

grievance, informal grievance, first-level grievance, and second-level grievance. Id. According to

16

Nevada Department of Corrections Administrative Regulation 740, these appear to be the steps

17

required to fully exhaust administrative procedure and therefore, based on the content of the FAC,

18

Plaintiff met the burden established in Woodford. 548 U.S. at 90-91. As Defendants contend, this

19

burden is not met in the SAC as Plaintiff included the drug among a list of medications not

20

administered, but did not indicate any attempts to use administrative procedures to rectify a problem

21

with obtaining the drug. ECF No. 117. As such, Plaintiff fails to meet the administrative exhaustion

22

requirement. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-91. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Motion is based upon

23

the FAC and does not address the shortcomings in the SAC. ECF No. 197.

24

Which of Plaintiff’s Complaints is the operative complaint in this case is an issue that remains

25

outstanding.

Thus, the undersigned is not able to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted

26

administrative procedures and, thus, whether the Court’s June 23, 2022 Order regarding Clopidogrel

27

should be reconsidered. However, the Court notes it has sua sponte power to stay reconsideration

28

of its prior order as presented in the instant Motion. The inherent power of the Court to control its
2

1

docket includes the power to do so in the interest of judicial economy. Ali v. Trump, 241 F. Supp.

2

3d 1147, 1152 (W.D. Wash., 2017) citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Clinton

3

v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as

4

an incident to its power to control its own docket.”). “Every court has the inherent power to stay

5

causes on its docket with a view to avoiding duplicative litigation, inconsistent results, and waste of

6

time and effort by itself, the litigants and counsel.” Stern v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 484, 489

7

(D. Nev. 1983) (citations omitted).

8

The Court finds that determining whether Plaintiff’s FAC or SAC is operative in this matter

9

is necessary proceedings before a decision on the Motion for Reconsideration can be issued. Given

10

this circumstance, reaching a decision based on the content of either Complaint could lead to an

11

erroneous result that will only further complicate this dispute. The best interest of the Court and the

12

litigants is served through staying the Court’s Order regarding Clopidogrel (ECF No. 194) until such

13

a decision is reached on the pending Objection regarding which is the operative Complaint.

14

III.

ORDER

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Magistrate

16

Judge’s Order (ECF No. 196) is GRANTED to the extent that the Court STAYS the duty to comply

17

with its Order in ECF No. 194 until such time as there is a ruling on the issue of which of Plaintiff’s

18

Complaints is the operative complaint in this matter.

19

Dated this 29th day of July, 2022

20
21
22

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3