Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06525/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06525-6/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

HENRY DEAN PALMER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. HICINBOTHOM, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06525-AWI-LJO-P

 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 34)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 22)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Henry Dean Palmer (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On March 22, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which recommended the court grant

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Findings and Recommendations

were served on the parties and contained notice that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within thirty (30) days. On April 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-06525-AWI-LJO Document 36 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 5
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

In the complaint, Plaintiff contends that prison officials

were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by assigning

Plaintiff to a job that he was medically unable to do and

Plaintiff’s assignment to this job resulted in injury to

Plaintiff’s back. The Magistrate Judge recommended the court

grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint because the

complaint was filed outside of the one year statute of

limitations. Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contains no specific

statute of limitations, federal courts borrow state statues of

limitations for personal injury actions in section 1983 suits. 

See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Torres v. City of

Santa Ana, 108 F.3d 224, 226 (9 Cir. 1997); Vaughan v. th

Grijalva, 927 F.2d 476, 478 (9 Cir. 1991). In California, the th

applicable statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims is one

year. See Former Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(c) (for events

occurring before January 1, 2003, the statute of limitations

period is one year). This action was filed on October 31, 2003. 

 The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s cause of action

accrued on June 11, 2002, when Plaintiff was placed in a job he

was not medically fit to perform. As such, the Magistrate Judge

reasoned this action was not timely because it was not filed

until October 31, 2003, more than one year after the June 11,

2002 accrual date. In the objections, Plaintiff contends his

Case 1:03-cv-06525-AWI-LJO Document 36 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 5
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

cause of action did not accrue until November 17, 2002, when he

realized that he had severally hurt his lower back. Federal law

determines when a civil rights claim accrues. See Elliott v.

City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 801-802 (9 Cir. 1994). Under th

federal law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has

reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action. 

Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir.1996). A colorable

argument can be made that Plaintiff did not know of the injury

caused by Defendants’ improper job placement in June 2002 until

Plaintiff realized he had become physically injured performing

this job on November 17, 2002. Using an accrual date of

November 17, 2002, this action was timely filed on October 31,

2003.

However, even if the court agrees with Plaintiff regarding

the statute of limitations issue, the action is subject to

dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C § 1997e to provide

that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions under [42 USC § 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 USC § 1997e(a). Exhaustion in prisoner cases

covered by § 1997e(a) is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S.

516, 524 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted, and

those remedies “need not meet federal standards, nor must they be

‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Id. Even when the prisoner

seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably

Case 1:03-cv-06525-AWI-LJO Document 36 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 5
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

money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Similarly, exhaustion is a

prerequisite to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they

involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether

they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 534

U.S. at 532. Satisfaction of the exhaustion requirement does

not require that inmates draft grievances with the precision of

an attorney, laying out every fact, identifying every defendant

by name, and identifying which constitutional rights were

violated by which actions or omissions. However, satisfaction

of the exhaustion requirement requires that inmates, in their

grievances, place prison personnel on fair notice as to the

events that subsequently give rise to suit. See Vieira v.

Mills, 2002 WL 1067816, *1 (N.D.Cal. 2002). The court has

carefully reviewed all exhibits provided by Defendants and

Plaintiff. While Plaintiff did appeal issues concerning his

medical care and housing needs, Plaintiff did not file an appeal

alleging that Defendants’ caused Plaintiff physical injury on or

before November 17, 2002 because they had improperly classified

Plaintiff in June 2002. Thus, the court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that this action is subject to dismissal for

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to

filing suit. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 22, 2006,

are ADOPTED;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed on October 24,

2005, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and,

Case 1:03-cv-06525-AWI-LJO Document 36 Filed 06/27/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. The action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06525-AWI-LJO Document 36 Filed 06/27/06 Page 5 of 5