(PC) Baca v. Biter ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK BACA, No. 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 MARTIN BITER, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 127, 130, 156) 16 17 Plaintiff Frank Baca is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action 18 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on plaintiff’s claims of deliberate 19 indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on his 20 allegations that the defendant prison officials failed to treat his Hepatitis C Virus and related 21 medical conditions. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On July 12, 2019, Defendant Dileo moved for summary judgment on the ground that 24 plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not naming Dr. Dileo in his inmate 25 health care appeal. (Doc. No. 127.) On July 19, 2019, Defendant Akanno also moved for 26 summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by 27 not naming Dr. Akanno in his inmate heath care appeal. (Doc. No. 130.) 28 ///// 1 On February 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 2 recommendations recommending that defendants’ motions for summary judgment be denied. 3 (Doc. No. 156.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 4 notice that any objections thereto must be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 4.) On 5 March 12, 2020, Defendant Akanno filed his objections to the pending findings and 6 recommendations and on March 18, 2020, Defendant Dileo filed his objections. (Doc. Nos. 159 7 and 165.) 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 9 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 10 including defendants’ objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and 11 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 12 The pending findings and recommendations rely on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Reyes v. 13 Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016) in recommending that defendants’ motions be denied even 14 though plaintiff violated a procedural rule established by state regulation by not naming them in 15 his inmate grievance, because prison officials had notice of the issue being presented by plaintiff 16 in his inmate grievance and denied that grievance on its merits. (Doc. No. 156 at 2–3.) 17 In Reyes, the prisoner plaintiff filed an inmate grievance complaining of changes to his 18 pain medication regimen. Id. at 655-56. After exhausting his available administrative remedies 19 by proceeding through California’s three-level inmate grievance appeal process, the plaintiff filed 20 a § 1983 action naming a number of prison officials as defendants, including two doctors not 21 previously named in his inmate grievance. Id. at 656. The Ninth Circuit, reversing the district 22 court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claims against the two doctors, explained as follows: 23 The PLRA provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other 24 Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 25 available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Section 1997e(a) requires an inmate not only to pursue every available step of the 26 prison grievance process but also to adhere to the “critical procedural rules” of that process. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 27 90, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). “[I]t is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of 28 1 proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S. Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). 2 The California prison grievance system has three levels of review; 3 an inmate exhausts administrative remedies by obtaining a decision at each level. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b) (2011); Harvey 4 v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010). It is uncontested that Reyes obtained a decision at all three levels. The issue is whether 5 he nevertheless failed to exhaust administrative remedies because his grievance did not name all staff members involved in his case. 6 See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a) (2015). 7 * * * 8 When prison officials opt not to enforce a procedural rule but instead decide an inmate’s grievance on the merits, the purposes of 9 the PLRA exhaustion requirement have been fully served: prison officials have had a fair opportunity to correct any claimed 10 deprivation and an administrative record supporting the prison’s decision has been developed. Dismissing the inmate’s claim for 11 failure to exhaust under these circumstances does not advance the statutory goal of avoiding unnecessary interference in prison 12 administration. Rather, it prevents the courts from considering a claim that has already been fully vetted within the prison system. 13 * * * 14 [A] prisoner exhausts “such administrative remedies as are 15 available,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), under the PLRA despite failing to comply with a procedural rule if prison officials ignore the 16 procedural problem and render a decision on the merits of the grievance at each available step of the administrative process. 17 18 Id. at 657-58. Because prison officials reviewed and decided plaintiff’s inmate grievance at every 19 level of the administrative process on the merits, the Ninth Circuit held in Reyes that the plaintiff 20 had adequately exhausted all of his administrative remedies prior to bringing suit as required 21 under the PLRA, even though his inmate grievance did not name all prison staff members 22 involved in his case. Id. 23 In their objections to the pending findings and recommendations, defendants largely 24 reiterate the arguments that they raised in their motions for summary judgment and in their replies 25 to plaintiff’s oppositions—arguments that were already addressed by the findings and 26 recommendations. Defendants assert that Reyes is not applicable. (Doc. Nos. 159 at 2; 165 at 4.) 27 But the cases they cite to support their arguments in this regard are unavailing because the 28 circumstances that make those cases distinguishable from Reyes are not present here. For 1 example, defendant Akanno cites Bruister v. Asuncion, No. 2:17-cv-05106-PSG-RAO, 2019 WL 2 1744215, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:17-cv- 3 05106-PSG-RAO, 2019 WL 6655388 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2019), in which the plaintiff’s inmate 4 grievance named three specific correctional officers involved in an excessive force incident, and 5 plaintiff brought a civil rights action not only against those three officers but also against other 6 officers who he had not named in his inmate grievance. The court found that the plaintiff had not 7 exhausted his administrative remedies against the officers not named in his grievance because it 8 did “not appear that prison officials ignored Plaintiff’s violation of this procedural rule as there is 9 nothing in Plaintiff’s grievance to alert the prison that he was complaining about any unnamed 10 officers” and “the appeals examiners did not reference these [other] Defendants or consider any 11 excessive force claims against any unnamed officers in their decisions.” Id. In contrast to 12 Bruister, and as stated in the pending findings and recommendations, here, plaintiff’s inmate 13 grievance “did not just fail to list defendants Akanno and Dileo; it failed to ‘list’ any defendants, 14 much less give titles and describe involvement.” (Doc. No. 156 at 2.) Nevertheless, prison 15 officials processed plaintiff’s grievance through all levels and prison officials decided plaintiff’s 16 appeal on its merits. (Id.) 17 Defendant Akanno also argues that plaintiff could not possibly exhaust administrative 18 remedies against him because he was not involved in plaintiff’s medical care until after plaintiff 19 filed his inmate grievance. The court is not persuaded by this argument because, unlike the 20 officers in Bruister, here the decision at the third-level of review (the “director’s level decision”) 21 specifically references plaintiff’s medical visits on May 28, 2015 and June 15, 2015, when 22 plaintiff was seen by defendant Akanno. (See Doc. Nos. 127-4 at 24; 130 at 5, 9.) 23 The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Reyes is squarely 24 on point and finds no error with the analysis set forth in the pending findings and 25 recommendations. (Doc. No. 156 at 2.) Moreover, defendants’ objections provide no basis upon 26 which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The finding and recommendations issued on February 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 156) 3 are adopted in full; 4 2. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment due to plaintiffs failure to exhaust 5 his administrative remedies (Doc. Nos. 127, 130) are denied; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 7 proceedings. 8 | IT IS SOORDERED. a " 9 Li. wh F Dated: _ March 23, 2020 Aa oe 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28