(PC) Shelton v. Chorley, No. 1:2007cv00560 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 21 Motion for Judgment signed by District Judge Mary H. Murguia on 09/26/2009. (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Shelton v. Chorley 1 Doc. 33 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Adam Shelton, Jr., 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 Glen Chorley, 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-1-07-560-PHX-MHM ORDER 15 16 17 Plaintiff Adam Shelton, Jr., who is a state prisoner confined in the Kern Valley State 18 Prison in Delano, California, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. # 21) 20 Having considered the parties’ pleadings, the exhibits related thereto, as well as the 21 applicable law, the Court now enters its ruling. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 11, 2007, alleging that on March 22, 2006, as he 24 was going to the medical clinic for diabetic testing, he was stopped by Defendant Chorley 25 because he was wearing his personal shoes, in contravention of a recent memo. Plaintiff 26 alleged that he attempted to explain to Defendant that had a verified medical chrono allowing 27 him to wear his shoes, but Defendant would not listen. According to Plaintiff, Defendant 28 grabbed him, flipped him on his head, came down on his face and back with full body Dockets.Justia.com 1 weight, and injured his arm so severely that a metal rod had to be placed in his arm to hold 2 and replace torn tendons and ligaments. (Doc. # 1, p. 3 & attachment) 3 Plaintiff alleged that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference by denying him 4 medical care on March 22, 2003 and refusing to verify his chrono in violation of the Eight 5 Amendment. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant used excessive physical force against him 6 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. # 1, p. 3) 7 On June 19, 2007, Magistrate Judge Sandra Snyder issued an order finding that 8 Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims prior to filing suit and recommending that the Complaint 9 be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. # 8) On July 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to 10 the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation, attaching as evidence his grievance 11 forms and the replies thereto. (Doc. # 9) Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued an order 12 vacating her June 19, 2007 order, finding that “Plaintiff’s evidence and explanation raise an 13 issue of fact regarding whether his appeal was rejected despite his compliance with the 14 proper procedures and the appeals coordinator’s requests for supplementation.” (Doc. # 10, 15 p. 2) The Magistrate Judge further found that Plaintiff’s Complaint stated a cognizable claim 16 for use of excessive force, but did not state a claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s 17 medical needs. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff the opportunity to 18 amend his Complaint or proceed only on the excessive force claim. (Doc. # 10, p. 5) On 19 October 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a notice that he was willing to proceed only on the excessive 20 force claim. (Doc. # 11) 21 On November 12, 2008, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the 22 Pleadings. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with 23 respect to his excessive force claim. Plaintiff filed a response, contending that he “did all 24 [he] could to exhaust [the] administrative grievance process.” (Doc. # 25) Attached as 25 exhibits are copies of Plaintiff’s grievance forms and the CDC’s replies. 26 27 The exhibits show that on March 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed a 602 inmate appeal describing the alleged assault by Defendant: 28 -2- 1 2 3 4 On 3/22/06, about 6:25 a.m., I was on my way to medical line, I do this 7 days a week, but this c/o Chorley stop me & told me that I could not go to medical because I had on my personal shoes on & the day before I was told by another petio officer & the M.T.A. that my chrono was still good. So I ask c/o Chorley to just take me to medical & they will tell him, he told me no, so I ask to talk with the Sgt. & he told me no, then took me by my right arm, then spin me, pick me up & slam me on top of my head & that is unnecessary force and excessive force. 5 (Id., Ex. 1, p. 4) 6 On April 12, 2006, the appeals coordinator returned the grievance form with the 7 notation, “Complete in blue or black ink.1 Explain further how excess force was allegedly 8 used.” (Id., Ex. 1, p. 1) 9 On April 25, 2006, Plaintiff re-submitted a 602 appeals form, once again describing 10 Defendant’s refusal to allow him in the medical line wearing his personal shoes: 11 12 13 14 15 16 On 3/22/06 at 6:25 a.m. I was released from my cell B5-118 on my way to the MTA Building. I go 7 days a week. c/o Chorley stopped me this morning and told me I can’t go to the MTA Building with personal shoes on! I pulled out my shoe “Chrono” c/o Chorley still refused to let me go get my medication, so I asked to speak to a “Sgt” and he said No take it to your cell. I turned on my way to the section I live in & at that time I was assaulted by c/o Chorley. I was slamed (sic) on my head from behind for no reason at all. Per the CCR Title 15 Sub-Section 3268(2)(2)(3) c/o Chorley is out of line. (Id., Ex. 2, p. 1) 17 On May 17, 2006, the appeals coordinator returned the grievance form with the 18 notation, “Provide clarification regarding your staff complaint. How was your head “slamed” 19 explain in detail what transpired afterwards. Did anyone witness this?” (Id., Ex. 4) In 20 response to this request, Plaintiff described the details of the alleged assault in a document 21 dated May 28, 2006. (Id., Ex. 4, p. 2, Ex. 5) 22 On a form titled “Inmate Request for Interview” and dated June 6, 2006, Plaintiff 23 stated that he had not yet received a response to his grievance and inquired about the status 24 of his appeal. ((Id., Ex. 5) On January 5, 2007, and again on February 5, 2007, the appeals 25 coordinator returned Plaintiff’s grievance form, explaining that there had been too great a 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff alleged that he completed his first grievance in pencil because he “was in Ad-Seg lock-up” and therefore “only had a pencil at the time.” (Doc. # 1, p. 2, Doc. # 25, Ex. 1, p. 4) -3- 1 time lapse between when the action or decision occurred and when Plaintiff filed his appeal 2 with no explanation why Plaintiff did not or could not file in a timely fashion. (Id., Ex. 7; 3 Ex. 3, p. 2) The appeals coordinator stated that Plaintiff’s appeal would not be processed 4 further. (Id., Ex. 3, p. 2) 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that a prisoner may not bring 7 a lawsuit with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 unless all available administrative 8 remedies have been exhausted. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 9 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2006); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). A 10 prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable 11 rules. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006). Exhaustion is required for all suits 12 about prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523 (2002), regardless of the type of relief 13 offered through the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 14 Exhaustion is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). 15 Defendant bears the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt, 315 16 F.3d at 1119. Because exhaustion is a matter of abatement in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) 17 motion, a court may look beyond the pleadings to decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 18 1119-20. Further, a court has broad discretion as to the method to be used in resolving the 19 factual dispute. Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 20 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). 21 III. EXHAUSTION PROCESS 22 To satisfy § 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust the grievance procedures established 23 by the prison in which the inmate is housed. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. Under California law, 24 inmates may appeal “any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can 25 demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” C AL. C ODE R EGS. tit. 15, § 26 3084.1(a). 27 comprised of a four-tiered hierarchy. See C AL. C ODE R EGS. tit. 15, § 3084.5. An inmate The California Department of Corrections (CDC”) grievance process is 28 -4- 1 must first attempt to informally resolve the problem with the “staff involved in the action or 2 decision being appealed.” 3 unsuccessful, the inmate must submit a formal appeal on an approved form to the 4 correctional institution’s appeals coordinator, id., and if unsuccessful there, submit another 5 formal appeal for a second level of review conducted by the warden or his or her designee. 6 See C AL. C ODE R EGS. tit. 15, §§ 3084.5© & 3084.5(e)(1). If the warden denies the appeal, 7 the inmate must then submit a formal appeal to the director of the CDC. See C AL. C ODE 8 R EGS. tit. 15, § 3084.5(e)(2). The director’s decision “shall be final and exhausts all 9 administrative remedies available in the Department [of Corrections].” C AL. C ODE R EGS. tit. 15, § 3084.5(b). If that attempt is C ALIFORNIA 10 D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS O PERATIONS M ANUAL § 54100.11. (Doc. # 67, ex. 6) 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force should be dismissed because 13 Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. To support his 14 position, Defendant provides two declarations by CDC appeals personnel, who assert that the 15 grievances that the Inmate Appeals Office received and accepted for review between March 16 22, 2006 (the date of the alleged injury) and April 11, 2007 (the date Plaintiff filed suit) did 17 not contain an excessive physical force allegation against Defendant (Doc. # 21, pp.2, 4; 18 Billings Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A-B), and that the Inmate Appeals Branch did not accept any appeals 19 from Plaintiff for a Director’s Level Decision during this time (Doc. # 21, pp. 2, 5; Grannis 20 Decl. ¶ 5). Defendant concludes that the absence of any excessive force grievances at these 21 levels demonstrates that Plaintiff failed to comply with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements. 22 The Court disagrees. 23 To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a grievance must alert prison officials to the 24 claims the plaintiff has included in the complaint. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525 (2002) 25 (purpose of exhaustion requirement is to give officials “time and opportunity to address 26 complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.”). The “primary 27 purpose of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice 28 -5- 1 to a specific official that he or she may be sued.” Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (5 th 2 Cir. 2004) Here, Plaintiff’s March 31, 2006 grievance (regardless of whether it was written 3 in pencil or ink), as well as his subsequent April 25, 2006 grievance, were sufficient to 4 provide the prison with a fair opportunity to address the problem and to put the prison on 5 notice of Plaintiff’s potential excess force claim. 6 Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff exhausted all available administrative 7 remedies. See Porter, 534 U.S. at 524. In considering Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on 8 the Pleadings, the Court accepts all of Plaintiff’s allegations of fact as true, Austad v. United 9 States, 386 F.2d 147, 149 (1967), and construes all reasonable inferences drawn from these 10 facts in Plaintiff’s favor, General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventist 11 Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9 th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff alleges, and the record 12 demonstrates, that he complied with the prison’s grievance procedures. On March 31, 2006, 13 nine days after the alleged injury, Plaintiff filed a grievance on a 602 inmate appeal form. 14 In response to the appeals coordinator’s requests for supplementation, on April 25, 2006, 15 Plaintiff re-submitted a timely 602 appeal form, and on May 28, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a 16 timely detailed clarification of the alleged assault. (Doc. # 25, Ex. 4, p. 2, Ex. 5). On June 17 20, 2006, Plaintiff inquired about the status of his grievance, stating that he had not yet 18 received a response. (Doc. # 25, Ex. 5) Plaintiff’s inquiry went unanswered until January 19 5, 2007, when the appeals coordinator informed Plaintiff that there had been” too great a time 20 lapse between when the action or decision occurred” and when Plaintiff filed his appeal. 21 (Doc. # 25, Ex. 7) On January 18, 2007, Plaintiff responded that he had placed his appeal 22 in the housing unit’s appeals box in April “within the requisite time” and therefore the 23 appeals coordinator’s “receipt of it on December 28, 2006" was “not [his] fault.” (Doc. # 25, 24 Ex. 7) On February 5, 2007, the appeals coordinator once again responded that there had 25 been “too great a time lapse” and stated that the appeal would “not be processed further.” 26 Under the facts presented here, the Court finds that Plaintiff complied with the prison’s 27 grievance procedures and exhausted his administrative remedies. 28 -6- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 3 # 21) 4 5 6 DATED this 26 th day of September, 2009. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
