(PC) Eric O'Dell v. Cheryl Mims ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC O’DELL, No. 1:20-cv-00378-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 CHERYL MIMS, (Doc. Nos. 25, 35) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Eric O’Dell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 15, 2020, Defendant Cheryl Mims filed a motion for summary judgment 21 arguing that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as 22 required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff filed an 23 opposition to defendant’s motion on December 30, 2020, (Doc. No. 27), to which defendant filed 24 a reply on January 6, 2021, (Doc. No. 28). 25 On August 6, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 26 recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 35.) The 27 uncontested evidence before the court establishes that plaintiff failed to pursue his administrative inmate grievance regarding the claims underlying this case through to the highest level of review. 1 (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge therefore found that plaintiff failed to “properly exhaust” those 2 claims, as required by the PLRA. (Id. at 6.) The findings and recommendations were served on 3 plaintiff and provided him 21 days to file objections thereto. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on 4 September 1, 2021. (Doc. No. 36.) 5 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 6 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 7 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 8 proper analysis. 9 The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings that plaintiff failed to pursue his 10 administrative grievance through the highest level of review and, therefore, that he failed to 11 exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to pursue his inmate 12 grievance to the highest level. (See Doc. No. 27 at 1-2.) In his objections, plaintiff appears to 13 contend that he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because, according to the 14 California Code of Regulations, damages are not an available remedy with respect to his claim. 15 (See Doc. No. 36 at 2.) The Supreme Court has directly addressed this issue, holding that the 16 PLRA requires administrative exhaustion regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and the 17 relief offered by the administrative grievance process as long as some relief is available. Booth v. 18 Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 734, 741 (2001). 19 Plaintiff also argues in his objections that he did not need to pursue his inmate grievance 20 to the highest level of review because he received all the relief he could obtain at an intermediate 21 level of review. (See Doc. No. 36 at 3, 5.) The magistrate judge also addressed this argument. 22 (Doc. No. 35 at 5-6.) In its response to plaintiff’s inmate grievance, California Correctional 23 Health Care Services (“CCHCS”) explicitly found that plaintiff’s mental health treatment did “not 24 constitute staff misconduct or deliberate indifference to [his] health care needs.” (Id. at 2.) The 25 CCHCS’s dispositional letter informed plaintiff that if he were “dissatisfied with the Institutional 26 Level Response,” he could submit his inmate grievance “for headquarters’ level review,” and that 27 a headquarters level review would exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id.) In light of this, 1 | that defendant provided constitutionally inadequate mental health treatment, or that prison 2 | officials told him that he no further remedies were available to him, is unpersuasive. 3 Accordingly, 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 6, 2021 (Doc. No. 35) are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 25) is granted; 7 3. This case is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies 8 prior to filing suit; 9 4. Plaintiff's pending motions (Doc. Nos. 29, 34) are denied as moot; and, 10 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for 11 purposes of closure and to close this case. 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si am 8 Dated: _ September 19, 2021 PLA L oa 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28