Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01872/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01872-4/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

 This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s original complaint, filed September 19, 2005. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED LEON JACKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1872 LKK JFM P

vs.

DR. R. L. ANDREASEN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit and for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1

Plaintiff’s complaint contains the following allegations. At all times relevant to

this action plaintiff was confined at California Medical Facility (CMF) in Vacaville, California. 

Defendant Dr. Andreasen was the Chief Medical Officer at CMF, defendant Dr. Bick was also a

Chief Medical Officer at CMF, and defendant Dr. Khoury was the Chief Deputy Warden for

Clinical Services at CMF. 

Case 2:05-cv-01872-LKK -JFM Document 25 Filed 03/06/08 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

2

On May 17, 2001, because his “left leg was bleeding and massively swollen” 

plaintiff was seen by Dr. Leonard Meyers, who is not a defendant in this action, Complaint, filed

September 19, 2005, at 5. Dr. Meyers took a culture of the drainage from plaintiff’s leg wound

and sent it an outside laboratory. On May 20, 2001, Dr. Meyers ordered medical staff to give

plaintiff stomach injections of high doses of antibiotics to treat the leg wound. Plaintiff began to

bleed internally from the injections and was taken to an emergency room in Napa, California to

stop the bleeding. Plaintiff returned to CMF on or about June 1, 2001, and continued to see Dr.

Meyers as his physician.

Dr. Meyers had been assigned by Dr. Andreasen assigned to treat plaintiff because 

plaintiff had filed an earlier lawsuit against defendant Andreasen and other CMF staff. On or

about June 15, 2001, plaintiff complained to defendant Andreasen about the medical care he was

receiving from Dr. Meyers and requested assignment to another physician. Defendant Andreasen

refused. 

During attempts to find information necessary to serve process on Dr. Meyers in

an earlier case, plaintiff was informed by an employee of Medical Board of California that Dr.

Meyers was not licensed to practice medicine in California. Plaintiff also sought relief from

various other agencies

Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment

by failing to train and supervise Dr. Meyers and by retaliating against him by assigning him to

Dr. Meyers. He also raises a conspiracy claim and a pendent state law negligence claim.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

I. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies 

Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides in relevant part

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). The exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741

Case 2:05-cv-01872-LKK -JFM Document 25 Filed 03/06/08 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

3

(2001). In California, administrative procedures generally are exhausted once a plaintiff has

received a “Director’s Level Decision,” or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims. 

15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.5. 

The exhaustion requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1996(e) is an affirmative defense. See

Jones v. Bock, __ U.S.__, __, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). Defendants have the burden of

“raising and proving the absence of exhaustion,” which they may do in an unenumerated Rule

12(b) motion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.

Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). “In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to

exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed

issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. When the court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted

administrative remedies on a claim, “the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without

prejudice.” Id. at 1120. See also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied ___U.S.___, 127 S. Ct. 1212 (2007). 

In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants present evidence that plaintiff

failed to pursue to the Director’s Level of Review his administrative grievance concerning the

events complained of in the instant action. See Declaration of N. Grannis in Support of Motion

to Dismiss Complaint, filed May 7, 2007. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff points to an

administrative grievance that he submitted on or about September 12, 2002, in which he alleged

that Dr. Meyers was not licensed to practice medicine in California. See Attachment I to

Complaint, filed September 19, 2005. In the grievance, plaintiff sought an investigation into the

alleged failure to check Dr. Meyer’s license and background before he was allowed to treat

inmates at CMF, reprimand of “management staff” for failing to investigate Dr. Meyers’

background, money damages, and criminal prosecution of Dr. Meyers. Id. That grievance was

denied at the first and second formal levels of administrative review on the grounds that Dr.

Meyers had a current and valid license to practice medicine while he was employed at CMF. Id. 

The first level response also stated that “[e]ven if Dr. Meyers was not licensed by the State of

Case 2:05-cv-01872-LKK -JFM Document 25 Filed 03/06/08 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 The twenty day period will not be extended. 2

4

California, he may have worked here for up to two years while his licensing was compiled by the

California Medical Boards.” Id. Plaintiff’s grievance was rejected at the Director’s Level on the

ground that plaintiff had “not demonstrated that the departmental decision, action, condition or

policy adversely affects [his] welfare.” Id. 

In the instant action, plaintiff claims that defendants violated his constitutional

rights by failing to properly train and supervise Dr. Meyers, and by “committing acts of

retaliation, crimes and conspiracy to ‘cover-up’ and ‘conceal’” that Dr. Meyers was not licensed

to practice medicine in California. (Complaint, at 1-2.) The subject of plaintiff’s administrative

grievance was the allegation that Dr. Meyers lacked a license to practice medicine while he was

employed at CMF, and the alleged failure of “management” to investigate the supposed absence

of a license. The action at bar is grounded in allegations of failure to train and supervise Dr.

Meyers, and alleged retaliatory and other acts committed to cover-up the alleged absence of a

license. Plaintiff did not present any of these allegations in his grievance. 

For the foregoing reasons, this court finds that plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies for the claims at bar prior to filing this action. Accordingly, defendants’

motion to dismiss should be granted and this action should be dismissed without prejudice. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ May 7, 2007 motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice. 

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 twenty

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 2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

Case 2:05-cv-01872-LKK -JFM Document 25 Filed 03/06/08 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

5

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: March 5, 2008.

12

2jack1872.157

Case 2:05-cv-01872-LKK -JFM Document 25 Filed 03/06/08 Page 5 of 5