Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00068-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1: 11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO:

(1) GRANT DEFENDANT MEDINA’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(ECF No. 75); AND 

(2) DENY DEFENDANT BONDOC’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(ECF No. 77)

(ECF No. 113)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 12.) The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302.

On November 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 113) to grant Defendant Medina’s motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 75) and deny Defendant Bondoc’s motion for summary judgment 

(ECF No. 77). Both Defendant Bondoc and Plaintiff have filed objections. (ECF Nos. 

115, 122.) Defendant Bondoc contends that Plaintiff failed to prove that he submitted his 

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 132 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

administrative appeal in conformity with the rules governing submission of inmate 

appeals. See Cal. Code. Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.5(a) (2006). Specifically, Defendant 

Bondoc notes that Plaintiff does not allege details regarding the person to whom he 

submitted the 2006 appeal or to what level it was submitted. Defendant Bendoc 

contends that a failure to submit an appeal at the informal level prior to submitting at the 

first formal level would have resulted in rejection of the appeal. Doc. 115 at 3 (citing Cal. 

Code Regs. Titl. 15 § 3084.3(c)(4) (2006); Pacillas Decl., Doc. 77-4 at ¶ 7). If Plaintiff 

had in fact improperly submitted his appeal, permitting it to be rejected, Plaintiff should 

have received a written rejection “explaining why the appeal is unacceptable.” citing Cal. 

Code Regs. Titl. 15 § 3084.3(d) (2006). Plaintiff alleges that he never received any 

response to his May 3, 2006 appeal. Doc. 91-1 at ¶ 4. This Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s finding that a dispute of material fact exists, precluding summary 

judgment on the question of exhaustion as to Defendant Bendoc.

Plaintiff takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he failed to 

exhaust administrative remedies as to Defendant Medina. Plaintiff first contends that a 

failure to treat a serious medical need is an ongoing wrong that can be appealed at any 

point during the withholding of treatment. Otherwise, Plaintiff argues, a prisoner who 

receives inadequate medical treatment but fails to file a grievance within 15 days would 

never be able to seek redress. Plaintiff is certainly correct that, under the 2008 rules, a 

prisoner could request medical treatment and, if denied or inadequate, could file a 

grievance. However, failure to treat Plaintiff’s medical condition by a series of different 

medical providers over a period of years does not extend the time for Plaintiff to submit a 

grievance about any one incident to more than 15 days after the specific event occurred.

See Silas v. Barreras, 2012 WL 1100661, *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012); Garcia v. 

Lamarque, 2011 WL 3516144, *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011); Granger v. Alameida, 

2007 WL 1373889, *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2007) adopted by 2007 WL 1821459 (E.D. Cal 

June 25, 2007); but see Real v. Soltanian-Zadeh, 2013 WL 858158, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 

2013) (finding that a grievance submitted at all levels regarding a series of incidents—all 

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 132 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

denying medical treatment—with multiple defendants, submitted more than 15 days after 

the first interaction with a defendant was sufficient to exhaust as to all defendants in the 

series). Because Plaintiff did not file a grievance within 15 days of his only reported 

interaction with Defendant Medina, on April 1, 2008, his administrative appeal—if 

submitted—was untimely. Taking all facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the May 

16, 2008 grievance could not have exhausted any claim as to Defendant Medina.

Second, Plaintiff contends that the requirement that he attempt to resolve the 

grievance informally with “staff involved in the action or decision,” Cal. Code. Regs. Titl.

15 § 3084.5(a), should be understood only to require him to attempt to resolve the 

matter with any one of the multiple staff involved in the failure to provide medical 

treatment. Indeed, the CDC 602 Form provided to inmates has a blank for a single staff 

member to respond, sign, and date. See Doc. 79 at 18. Plaintiff further correctly notes

that the rules governing submission of grievances during 2008 did not require an inmate 

to list the specific staff members involved in the alleged misconduct. See Cal. Code. 

Regs. Titl. 15 § 3084.2(a) (2008). Instead the inmate was required to “describe the 

problem and the action requested.” Id. Because the Court already found that Plaintiff’s 

grievance was untimely and could not have exhausted Plaintiff’s administrative remedies 

as to Defendant Medina, it need not address the merit of this objection.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 

the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 

entire file, including the objections filed by both parties, the Court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on November 

18, 2015 (ECF No. 113) in full; 

2. Defendant Medina’s July 30, 2015, motion for summary judgment (ECF 

No. 75) is GRANTED;

3. Defendant Bondoc’s August 6, 2015, motion for summary judgment (ECF

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 132 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

No. 77) is DENIED; and

4. This matter is respectfully referred back to Magistrate Judge Seng to 

conduct a hearing regarding exhaustion, specifically to determine whether 

the May 6, 2006 grievance was submitted as alleged by Plaintiff and in 

conformity with the then-existing CDCR policies. See Albino v. Baca, 747 

F.3d 1162, 1166-68 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00068-AWI-MJS Document 132 Filed 02/22/16 Page 4 of 4