BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Joaquin Guerra ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Sweeney and Feely for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. These claims arise out of Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants were aware of but indifferent to Plaintiff's need for medical attention for his eye in May 2012 while he was in the custody of the Kern County Sheriff. (ECF No. 11.)
On May 22, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process,
The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion.
Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted);
The defendants bear the burden of proof in moving for summary judgment for failure to exhaust,
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602 describing the issue and the relief requested.
In Plaintiff's first amended complaint, he alleges as follows:
(ECF No. 11, pp. 3-4) (errors in original).
2. At the time plaintiff was a prisoner in the Kern County Jail in May of 2012, there was a grievance procedure in place for prisoners regarding treatment at Kern County Jail. (Decl. of Michael Mahoney ("Mahoney Decl."), ECF No. 38-1, ¶¶ 4-6; see also Kern County Sheriff's Department Detentions Bureau Policies and Procedures, ECF No. 38-1, pp. 15-20.)
3. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that there was a grievance procedure in place for prisoners regarding treatment at the Kern County Jail. (Pl.'s Dep., ECF No. 38-1, pp. 46:10-18, 47:14-19.)
4. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not see the need to continue with the grievance process. (
5. There is no record of any grievance filed by the plaintiff with regards to his treatment in the Kern County Jail in May of 2012. (Decl. of Sergeant Anthony Gordon ("Gordon Decl."), ECF No. 38-1, ¶ 3; Decl. of Lieutenant Adam Plugge ("Plugge Decl."), ECF No. 38-1, ¶ 4.)
The affiant [Plaintiff] swears that administrative tort claim was filed by mail with the County of Kern, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Government Code 910, 910.2 & 910.4) on the date of July 24, 2012, address 1115 Truxtun Ave 5th floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 and never received any kind of response from the Board of Supervisors.
Also Plaintiff Guerra declares that any/all legal advice and/or legal forms filed were given to Plaintiff Guerra by the legal research associates at Lerdo Pre-trial Facilitie where Plaintiff Guerra was being detained at the time of this incident.
Plaintiff Guerra being a layman not having sufficient knowledge of the law could only follow the instructions given to Plaintiff Guerra by the Kern County Pre-Trial Legal Research Associates governed by the County of Kern.
Plaintiff Guerra declares that in a memo Plaintiff Guerra Received from Legal Research Associates stated in bod black lettering, (you must first have exhausted the administrative procedures. This means filing an administrative tort claim with the city, county, and/or state in question)
Which Plaintiff Guerra did, with this said all Plaintiff Guerra did was follow instructions with the understanding that, that was the procedure needed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Plaintiff Guerra was never instructed that he must file a grievance first nor was Plaintiff Guerra ever given a grievance form to file.
Before addressing the issue of Plaintiff's exhaustion of his administrative remedies, the Court must first address Defendants' notice of no opposition. (ECF No. 41.) In that notice, Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Defendants cite in support the Court's May 27, 2015 second information order informing Plaintiff that his failure to respond to their motion for summary judgment could result in such a dismissal. (ECF No. 39 ¶ 2.) They argue that although Plaintiff filed and served a declaration on June 5, 2015, he did not serve them with an opposition, and therefore dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is proper here.
On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed and served a declaration from himself, signed under penalty of perjury, (ECF No. 40, pp. 1-2), accompanied by separately signed and dated "brief" addressing Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (
In this instance, Plaintiff has filed a one-page "brief" discussing his reasons for opposing Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40, p. 3.) Defendants do not discuss this brief in their notice, but it was attached to the declaration filed with this Court that Defendants acknowledge Plaintiff served upon them. Plaintiff's declaration was also separately signed under penalty of perjury, and contains facts in support of his position in his brief. (
Although Plaintiff's brief is not artfully presented, the Court will not construe Plaintiff's submissions as if he failed to submit any opposition to Defendants' motion whatsoever. To the extent Plaintiff's declaration sets forth admissible evidence, it should be considered in opposition to Defendants' motion, along with his arguments. Thus, in these circumstances it is not appropriate to dismiss Plaintiff's action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and Defendants' request should be denied.
Turning to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that Defendants Sweeney and Feely have carried their initial burden of showing the absence of exhaustion here. As Defendants argue, Plaintiff does not dispute that there was a grievance procedure in place at his institution at the time of the incident he complains about. Plaintiff also does not dispute that he did not file any inmate appeal or grievance through the institution's procedures.
The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff, "who must show that there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him by 2017showing that the local remedies were ineffective, unobtainable, unduly prolonged, inadequate, or obviously futile.'"
In this case Plaintiff contends, albeit inartfully, that he was mislead, either mistakenly or intentionally, by the jail's officials regarding the procedure for exhausting his administrative remedies, making those remedies effectively unavailable to him. (ECF No. 40, p. 3.) In support, Plaintiff submits a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining that he was instructed by the legal research associates at the Lerdo Pre-trial Facility (where he was being held at the time of the incident) that he needed to file an administrative claim form with Kern County to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 40, pp. 1-2.) Attached to Plaintiff's declaration is a hand-written copy of the claim form he declares he was instructed to file, which is completed, signed, and dated July 24, 2012. (ECF No. 4-5.) The form references the California Government Code, and is a form used for exhausting administrative remedies with respect to a state tort claim under the California Government Claims Act.
Upon shifting the burden to Plaintiff, the Court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, finds that he has sufficiently demonstrated that the prison's administrative remedies were "effectively unavailable" to him.
In these circumstances, Plaintiff has sufficiently rebutted Defendants' evidence in support of their motion, and they have not carried their ultimate burden of proof for their affirmative defense. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies at this time.
For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (ECF No. 37) be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
IT IS SO ORDERED.