Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01916-25/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

FRANK BACA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY DEFENDANT DILEO’S AND 

DEFENDANT AKANNO’S MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE 

TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES 

OBJECTIONS DUE IN 14 DAYS

ECF Nos. 127, 130

Plaintiff Frank Baca is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel in this civil 

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that prison officials failed to treat 

his Hepatitis C Virus and related conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See ECF No. 

29. On July 12, 2019, defendant Dileo moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. ECF No. 127. On July 19, 2019, defendant 

Akanno moved for the same relief. ECF No. 130. Both defendants concede that plaintiff pursued 

a 2015 grievance through the entire administrative process, but argue that the 2015 grievance 

process failed to exhaust plaintiff’s remedies against defendants Akanno and Dileo specifically. 

Both defendants point out that they were not named in the 2015 grievance; defendant Akanno 

also argues that he did not begin treating plaintiff until after the 2015 grievance was filed. See

ECF No. 127-1 at 6; ECF No. 130 at 9. Plaintiff opposed both motions on August 1, see ECF 

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 156 Filed 02/27/20 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

Nos. 132 and 133, and both defendants replied on August 8, see ECF Nos. 135 and 136. 

We recommend that the court deny both motions for summary judgment. The Ninth 

Circuit’s opinion in Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016), is squarely on point. The fact 

that plaintiff did not name specific defendants in his grievance, thus violating a procedural rule, 

does not contravene the exhaustion requirement because the prison had notice of the issue and 

decided the grievance on the merits. See id. at 657. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires that “[n]o action shall be brought 

with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a 

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Supreme Court has held 

that exhaustion “demands compliance critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system 

can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its 

proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006). Here, the administrative process of 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provides the relevant administrative 

process that must be exhausted. Those regulations require, among other things, that the inmate’s 

grievance “shall list all staff member(s) involved and shall describe their involvement in the 

issue.” Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3084.2(a)(3). The regulations further require that the inmate 

“shall include the staff member’s last name, first initial, title or position, if known, and the dates 

of the staff member’s involvement in the issue under appeal.” Id. 

Baca’s grievance did not comply with this rule, but prison officials nonetheless considered 

its merits. Indeed, Baca’s 2015 grievance did not just fail to list defendants Akanno and Dileo; it 

failed to “list” any defendants, much less give titles and describe involvement. See ECF No. 127-

4 at 17. The grievance does reference a single visit to an unnamed doctor on February 25, 2015, 

but it is otherwise much more general: Baca complains of a longstanding and ongoing 

“SERIOUS VIRAL INFECTION” for which he requests “IMMEDIATE MEDICAL 

TREATMENT. Id. The prison processed the complaint, and the final level of administrative 

review noted simply (and accurately) that Baca was requesting “[i]mmediate medical treatment 

for [his] hepatitis C virus.” Id. at 24. The Ninth Circuit (and at least seven other circuits) have 

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 156 Filed 02/27/20 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

held that “the PLRA exhaustion requirement is satisfied if prison officials decide a potentially 

procedurally flawed grievance on the merits.” Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2016). 

This is so, the court reasoned, because “[w]hen prison officials opt not to enforce a procedural 

rule but instead decide an inmate’s grievance on the merits, the purposes of the PLRA exhaustion 

requirement have been fully served: prison officials have had a fair opportunity to correct any 

claimed deprivation and an administrative record supporting the prison’s decision has been 

developed.” Id. at 658. Here, as in Reyes, “defendants cannot argue that prison officials were 

unaware of the involvement of physicians” who were not named in the grievance. Reyes, 810 

F.3d at 659. Baca was complaining of an ongoing condition, filed a general grievance, and prison 

officials decided it on the merits.

The fact that Baca was complaining of an ongoing condition is also why defendant 

Akanno’s separate argument—that he did not begin treating plaintiff until shortly after the 2015 

grievance was filed—does not succeed. Inmates “are not required to file and exhaust a separate 

grievance each time they allegedly receive inadequate medical care for an ongoing condition.” 

Lewis v. Naku, No. CIV S-07-0090-RRB-DAD, 2007 WL 3046013, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 

2007); see also Millner v. DiLeo, No. 1:17-cv-00507-LJO-SAB, 2019 WL 316827, at *7 (E.D. 

Cal. Jan. 24, 2019) (same); see also Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A 

grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories unless they are in some way 

needed to provide notice of the harm being grieved. A grievance also need not contain every fact 

necessary to prove each element of an eventual legal claim.”). 

Summary judgment is appropriate when 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). In a 

summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust, the defendant has the initial burden of 

establishing “that there was an available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not 

exhaust that available remedy.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014). Because 

the court is persuaded that defendants have not carried their burden, summary judgment in their 

favor is inappropriate. 

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 156 Filed 02/27/20 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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that:

1. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies, ECF Nos. 127 and 130, should be denied.

2. The case should be referred back for further proceedings.

We submit the findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 

recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 

and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 156 Filed 02/27/20 Page 4 of 4