Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00623/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00623-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. DUNBAR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0623 TLN CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

His remaining claim is that defendant Dunbar (defendant), a Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center 

(RCCC) employee, violated plaintiff’s rights arising under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing 

to provide plaintiff adequate medical care while plaintiff was a pretrial detainee. Defendant 

Dunbar has filed a motion for summary judgment. 

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there “is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by 

“citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, 

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for 

/////

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 31 Filed 09/29/14 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

purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials. . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). 

Summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 

against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element 

essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an 

essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” 

Id. 

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing 

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See Matsushita 

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the 

existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the allegations or denials 

of their pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, 

and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists or show 

that the materials cited by the movant do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the 

fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the 

governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., 

Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is 

genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 

party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 

establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual 

dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at 

trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce 

the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’” 

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963 

amendments).

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 31 Filed 09/29/14 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

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

In his complaint, which is signed under the penalty of perjury, plaintiff alleges as 

follows:1

1. On September 28, 2012, while plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the RCCC, plaintiff 

suffered two broken ribs as a result of an altercation with another inmate. Plaintiff received 

medical treatment for his injuries. Plaintiff was released from the infirmary on or about October 

1, 2012. When plaintiff was released, he was given an “incentive spirometer”2to assist him with 

breathing and a “written directive” that plaintiff be permitted to use it. 

2. When plaintiff was released from the infirmary, defendant would not permit plaintiff to 

use his “incentive spirometer” which, according to plaintiff, left him susceptible to pneumonia. 

Eventually, plaintiff did contract pneumonia and was transported to the emergency room at an 

outside hospital where he stayed the night.

III. Arguments And Analysis

Defendant’s first argument is that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with 

respect to his remaining claim. The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall 

be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). All steps must be 

completed before a civil rights action is filed, unless a plaintiff demonstrates a step is unavailable 

to him. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). If exhaustion has not 

occurred, it becomes plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate effective unavailability of the grievance 

process in order to avoid dismissal for failure to exhaust. See e.g. Rupe v. Beard, No. 2:08-cv2454 EFS P, 2013 WL 2458398, at *18 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2013). At the RCCC, inmates may 

/////

 

1

 The court identifies only those facts relevant to plaintiff’s remaining claim. For example, 

plaintiff asserts in his complaint that defendant refused plaintiff’s requests that he be housed in a 

cell on a lower tier. However, this allegation does not state a claim for relief under federal law 

because plaintiff fails to indicate how he was injured, if at all, based on where he was housed.

2

 According to Wikipedia, and “incentive spirometer” is a medical device used to help patients 

improve the functioning of their lungs. 

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 31 Filed 09/29/14 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

grieve any condition of confinement by utilizing a three step process. ECF No. 27-1, EX A-3. 

The final step in the process is review by the “division commander.” Id.

It is undisputed that plaintiff never filed a grievance alleging defendant denied plaintiff 

use of an “incentive spirometer” or that defendant: 1) denied plaintiff any other medication or 

medical appliance; or 2) denied plaintiff access to medical care.3 This being the case, plaintiff 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to the only remaining claim before the 

court and defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

In light of the foregoing, the court need not reach the other arguments put forward by 

defendant in favor of summary judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Dunbar’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) be granted; and

2. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: September 29, 2014

1

tayl0623.57(2)

 

3

 The evidence before the court reveals that defendant actually responded to a grievance in which 

plaintiff complained about being housed near the inmate with whom plaintiff fought on 

September 28, 2012. Complt. at 6-7.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 31 Filed 09/29/14 Page 4 of 4