Yocum v. Briggs et al
Filing
72
OPINION AND ORDER: I GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 47 . The motion is GRANTED as to Defendants Frost and Manu; it is DENIED as to Defendant Briggs. Signed on 5/16/16 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
DERALD D. YOCUM,
No. 3:14-cv-00422-MO
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
C/O BRIGGS; Lt. FROST; and
CAPTAIN MANU,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On January 4, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [47].
Defendants moved to dismiss all but one of the remaining claims due to Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing this action. For the following reasons, I
GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [47]. The
motion is GRANTED as to Defendants Frost and Manu; it is DENIED as to Defendant Briggs.
BACKGROUND
After my previous ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [43], this case was
left with two surviving claims and three defendants. Claim one is for cruel and unusual
punishment based on harassment. Defendants Frost and Manu are supervisors who were
alleged to have received kytes outlining abuses and ignored them. Defendant Briggs is
an officer who allegedly spit on, yelled at, and improperly issued “daily fails” to Plaintiff.
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
In addition, Defendant Briggs allegedly threatened to discipline Plaintiff if he went to the
bathroom without a pass and then refused to give him a pass, causing Plaintiff to soil
himself.
Claim two is against Defendant Briggs for deprivation of Plaintiff’s religious
rights. Plaintiff claims Defendant Briggs’s harassment before, during, and after
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings created a substantial burden on Plaintiff’s exercise of
his religion.
Defendants move for partial summary judgment because Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner,
failed to exhaust the grievance procedure in two ways. First, Plaintiff failed to file any
grievances against two defendants, Lt. Frost and Captain Manu. Second, Plaintiff did not file
correct grievances against Defendant Briggs for his second claim.
DISCUSSION
As to the first claim, there is no evidence that Plaintiff ever submitted grievances against
the two supervisors, something that is required to sustain a claim of supervisory liability. Harper
v. Hawkins, 2016 WL 1261052, at *5 (D. Or. Mar. 30, 2016). I therefore GRANT the motion for
partial summary judgment as to Defendants Frost and Manu.
Defendants acknowledge Plaintiff did exhaust his claim against Defendant Briggs for the
first claim. The remaining question is whether Plaintiff exhausted his second claim against
Defendant Briggs. Plaintiff filed several grievances, only one of which was properly exhausted.
That grievance is titled “For Harassment” and outlines various ways in which Defendant Briggs
harassed Plaintiff. Defendants argue it does not cover Plaintiff’s deprivation of religion claim.
A grievance need not identify the legal theories an inmate is relying on. McCollum v. Cal.
Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 647 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2011). But, by the same token, the
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
grievance must alert jail officials to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought, and the
source of the problem. Id. at 876. The grievance must always provide at least enough
information to allow officials to take appropriate responsive measures. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557
F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009). For example, in Griffin a prisoner had requested a lower-bunk
assignment for medical reasons, which a nurse had granted. Id. He then filed grievances
requesting a ladder. What officials did not know, and what the plaintiff failed to tell them, was
that staff was disregarding the nurse’s order. Id. That was held to be insufficient to allow prison
officials to take corrective action. Id. Similarly, in McCollum, prisoners complained that prison
policies failed to provide for and accommodate certain Wiccan religious needs. McCollum, 647
F.3d at 876. They did not, however, complain that the problem was caused by lack of paid
Wiccan chaplains, and the Ninth Circuit held the claims pertaining to lack of paid Wiccan
chaplains were unexhausted. Id.
Here, Plaintiff’s grievance included language indicating Briggs threated Plaintiff “for
talking to my facilitator outside of an A.A. meeting when he allowed other people to do the same
thing making me afraid to go to my spiritual program of recovery.” In the appeal of his
grievance, he noted Briggs “would harass me preventing me from seeking a program of recover
[sic] and rehabilitate myself through spirituality.” Plaintiff mentions some type of interference
with “spiritual recovery” at every point in the grievance process. Because he identifies the
problem as interference with his A.A. meetings, which he considers to be spiritual, and because
he identifies the source of the problem as Defendant Briggs, Plaintiff has exhausted his claim for
religious interference under the Ninth Circuit’s standard.
Defendants argue Plaintiff’s grievance was for harassment and for disparate treatment
only. However, they ignore the fact that harassment is one way that the practice of religion can
3 – OPINION AND ORDER
be obstructed. Furthermore, if Defendant Briggs’s harassment prevented Plaintiff from
practicing his religion, it is irrelevant how Defendant Briggs treated other people. Defendants’
argument centers on the idea that a grievance can be for only one claim, something they
implicitly undercut by arguing the grievance was for both harassment and disparate treatment.
Oregon regulations do limit a grievance to “review of just one matter, action or incident per
inmate grievance form.” OR. ADMIN. R. 291-109-0140. Defendants enforced this principle by
rejecting all of Plaintiff’s other grievances for stating more than one matter, action, or incident.
Indeed, they even did so initially with the grievance at issue. However, after reviewing the
resubmitted grievance, Defendants allowed it to proceed. Any error in allowing multiple claims
through is due to Defendants’ actions. Plaintiff has met the standard to exhaust by alerting jail
officials to the nature and source of the wrong for the action he now brings. As such,
Defendants’ Motion as to Defendant Briggs is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above I GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment [47]. The motion is GRANTED as to Defendants Frost and Manu; it
is DENIED as to Defendant Briggs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16
day of May, 2016.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge
4 – OPINION AND ORDER
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?