Jacobson v. Contra Costa County ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 NICHOLAS JACOBSON, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 19-01716 WHA 12 v. 13 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, JANE T. ORDER DENYING HIMMELVO, JESSICA HAMILTON, PAUL PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14 MANAUT, VUTHY SEAN JENKINS, SAMIRA FOR SUMMARY A. ADAAN, KIRBY BRACKEL, ALLEN E. JUDGMENT ON 15 DE LA CRUZ, and DOES 1–20, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 Defendants. / 17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 In this civil rights action, plaintiff moves for summary judgment on defendants’ 20 affirmative defense. For the reasons below, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 21 STATEMENT 22 In June 2017, plaintiff Nicholas Jacobson entered Sutter Health Memorial Hospital with a 23 lumbar spinal fracture following a car accident. He left the hospital for the Martinez Detention 24 Facility (MDF) as a pretrial detainee between June 21 and July 5, 2017. Plaintiff then 25 transferred to a series of hospitals for treatment. In January 2018, he returned to MDF from the 26 hospital. In April 2019, plaintiff filed this action, alleging that at MDF from June 21, 2017, 27 through July 5, 2017, defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the ADA, the 28 1 Rehabilitation Action, and standards of care. He alleges that he received inadequate medical 2 care during his detainment in 2017 at MDF (Dkt. No. 25 at 2–3). 3 Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 on defendants’ 4 affirmative defense that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendants oppose 5 and ask the court for judgment in their favor. This order follows full briefing and oral argument 6 (Dkt. Nos. 25, 30, 35). 7 ANALYSIS 8 Summary judgment is granted under Rule 56 when “the pleadings, the discovery and 9 disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any 10 material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A district court 11 must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, 12 whether there is any genuine issue of material fact. Giles v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 13 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007). A fact is “material” only if it could affect the outcome of the 14 suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986). 15 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect 16 to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other [f]ederal law, by a prisoner confined 17 in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 18 available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although once within the discretion of the 19 district court, exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v. 20 Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). The exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion.” 21 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an 22 agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can 23 function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” 24 Id. at 90–91 (footnote omitted). 25 1. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. 26 This order holds that genuine issues of material facts exist as to defendants’ affirmative 27 defense that plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendants bear the burden to 28 “prove that there was an available administrative remedy, and that prisoner did not exhaust that 1 available remedy.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014). Once defendants meet 2 that burden, the inmate has the burden of production to show that “there is something in his 3 particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively 4 unavailable to him.” Ibid. The Custody Services Bureau, a division of Contra Costa County, 5 governs MDF’s policy and facilities. Defendants rely on those policies constituting five to six 6 pages of administrative remedies, which include the grievance and appeals procedures. 7 Defendants allege that plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies laid out in MDF’s 8 policy as they were available to him. Plaintiff, however, argues that MDF did not make those 9 remedies “available” to him. 10 A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether MDF notified plaintiff about the 11 grievance procedure. The PLRA applicability turns on this disputed fact. Plaintiff contends that 12 MDF failed to notify him of the grievance procedure because MDF did not provide him a copy 13 of its policies for grievances and appeals. Defendants counter that MDF made its policy and 14 procedure for grievances and appeals known to all inmates — including plaintiff. Defendants 15 point to the fact that when MDF admits inmates, MDF requires them to watch an orientation 16 video which provides an overview of MDF’s policies and procedures, including a briefing of the 17 grievance policy and where to obtain information regarding the policies. Based on the record, a 18 jury could go either way. Therefore, there is a fact question. 19 A material fact also exists as to whether MDF made the administrative remedies 20 “available” to plaintiff within the meaning of MDF’s policy. The grievance policy states that 21 formal grievances must be submitted “within 48 hours of the date of the incident or condition” 22 (Katon Decl. Exhs. A–C). Plaintiff claims that he did not have the capacity to exhaust his 23 administrative remedies during his detainment in 2017 due to his injuries. Plaintiff could have 24 filed his grievances when he returned to MDF in 2018, defendants reply, instead plaintiff 25 delayed the process until February 2019. It remains disputed as to whether MDF made the 26 administrative remedies “available” to plaintiff after the 48-hour period. Therefore, a factual 27 question exists, and the motion for summary judgment is denied. 28 1 2. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS. 2 Plaintiff objects to the Michael Brumfield and Elizabeth Berryman declarations and the exhibits submitted with defendants’ opposition brief. Because consideration of those 4}| declarations and exhibits would not change the outcome of this order, the objections are 5 || OVERRULED AS MOOT. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons above, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 8 || Defendants’ request for an order granting summary judgment in their favor sua sponte is also DENIED. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 N A 13 || Dated: December 20, 2019. lA 7 WILLIAM ALSUP 3 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28