Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00182/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00182-20/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD B. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED

(ECF No. 45)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Plaintiff Donald B. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff began this action by filing his Complaint on February 2, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) 

On March 17, 2011, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave

to amend. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 20, 2011. (Am.

Comp., ECF No. 15.) On August 29, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable

claim against Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, Byers and Oneyeje for allegedly

violating the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious

medical needs. (ECF No. 20.)

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 71 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 7
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

On March 28, 2012, Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, and Oneyeje filed a

motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 45.) On April 2, 2012,

Defendant Byers filed a notice of joinder in this motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff

failed to timely file an opposition and the Court issued findings and a recommendation that

Defendants’ motion be granted. (ECF No. 50.) Thereafter, the Court was informed that

Plaintiff’s non-response was a result of difficulties communicating with his court appointed

counsel. (ECF No. 52.) Accordingly, the Court vacated the findings and recommendations

and ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to file an opposition. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff’s counsel filed

an opposition on July 15, 2012 (ECF No. 57), but the Court found it inadequate and

Plaintiff again informed the Court that he had not had adequate communication with his

counsel (ECF No. 58). Also during this interim period, Defendants filed a reply. (Defs.’

Reply, ECF No. 59.) After holding a telephonic conference with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s

counsel, the Court gave Plaintiff’s counsel another opportunity to file an opposition. (ECF

Nos. 65, 66.) 

 Plaintiff’s counsel ultimately filed an opposition on October 5, 2012. (Pl.’s Opp’n,

ECF No. 67.) It was untimely. Nevertheless, and despite Defendants’ objections to it (ECF

Nos. 68 & 69), the Court, giving due regard to Plaintiff’s difficulties communicating with his

attorney, has considered Plaintiff’s points and authorities even though not timely filed. 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is now ready for ruling.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) stipulates, “No 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). Therefore, prisoners are

required to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock,

549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). The Supreme Court held that “the PLRA's exhaustion

requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 71 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 7
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

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some

other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Further, the exhaustion of

remedies is required, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner, as long as the

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the prisoner's complaint. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has an

administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints; the process is initiated by

submitting a CDCR Form 602. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, 3084.2(a) (2009). 

During the time relevant to this case, four levels of appeal existed: an informal level, a first

formal level, a second formal level, and a third formal level, also known as the "Director's

Level"; each successive appeal had to be submitted within fifteen working days of the

event being appealed. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). To properly exhaust administrative 1

remedies, a prisonermust complywith the deadlines and other applicable procedural rules. 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006).

The exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a) is not a pleading requirement, but rather

an affirmative defense. Defendants have the burden of proving plaintiff failed to exhaust

the available administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the District Court. Jones

v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). A motion raising a prisoner's failure to exhaust the

administrative remedies is properly asserted by way of an unenumerated motion under

Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003); Ritza v. Int'l

Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1998) (per

curium). In determining whether a case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies, “the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed

issues of fact” in a procedure that is “closely analogous to summary judgment.” Id. at

1119–20. When the court concludes the prisoner has not exhausted all of his available

Emergency changes to the regulations became effective on January 28, 2011. The changes

1

occurred after the events at issue here and are therefore irrelevant to the resolution of Defendants’ motion

to dismiss.

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 71 Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 7
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

administrative remedies, “the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice.” Id.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Claims

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges:

He has been a type II insulin-dependent diabetic since 2001. (Am. Compl. at 5.) 

He suffers from both hypo- and hyper-glycemia, i.e. low and high blood sugar levels. (Id.

at 5.) Plaintiff was transferred to California State Prison at Corcoran on July 26, 2010 on

an emergency medical transfer. (Id. at 7.) Defendant Enenmoh authorized this transfer. 

(Id. at 7.) Upon Plaintiff’s transfer, on or about August 25, 2010, Defendant Byers

confirmed Plaintiff’s prior diagnosis as a diabetic. (Id. at 7.)

On or about September 27, 2010, Defendant Enenmoh instructed the medical and

nursing staff at California State Prison at Corcoran to refuse to provide Plaintiff with

medical treatment. (Am. Compl. at 6.) On or about September 27, 2010, without a

doctor’s examination, Defendant Byers issued orders to Defendant LeMay to terminate all

of Plaintiff’s diabetic treatments and testing and declared that Plaintiff was no longer a 

diabetic individual. (Id. at 7-8.) Defendant Faria also ordered that Plaintiff not receive any

diabetic treatment or testing. (Id. at 9.) On or about September 27, 2010, Defendant

LeMay ordered that Plaintiff’s medicines be confiscated. (Id. at 9.) On or about November

12, 2010, Defendant Oneyeje was appointed as Plaintiff’s attending physician, but refused

to intervene in Plaintiff’s medical treatment or the lack thereof. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff did not

receive any medical treatment for his diabetes from September 2010 to February 2011.

(Id. at 4.)

B. Plaintiff’s Appeals

Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants

argue that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the PLRA.

It does appear Plaintiff filed only one appeal related to Defendants’ failure to provide

diabetes treatment. According to Defendants, on October 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed appeal

-4-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 71 Filed 10/24/12 Page 4 of 7
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

SATF-33-10-14869, regarding Defendant Byers’ determination that Plaintiff was no longer

diabetic, confiscation of his medication, and Plaintiff’s concern that he was not receiving

medical care. (Defs.’ Mot. at 4; Crum Decl. Ex. 1.) Plaintiff asked that he receive

immediate medical attention and that he be moved to another prison to receive proper

care. (Id.) This appeal was partially granted at the second level, and Plaintiff was told that

he could further appeal the decision. (Id.) Plaintiff apparently wanted his diabetes

treatment to be the same as it had been before he arrived at California State Prison at

Corcoran. In his decision on Plaintiff’s appeal, Defendant Enenmoh, the Chief Medical

officer, found that Plaintiff was receiving sufficient treatment for his diabetes. (Crum Decl.

Ex. 1.) Though Plaintiff’s appeal was not resolved in a manner satisfactory to him, his

remedy was to pursue the appeal to the third formal level. Plaintiff failed to pursue this

appeal past the second formal level. (Id.; Zampora Decl. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies regarding the treatment at issue in his Amended Complaint.

Defendants also refer to several additional, unrelated administrative appeals filed

by Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff filed appeal SATF-33-10-14679 regarding co-pay issues; that

appeal was granted on the first level. (Crum Decl. Ex. 2.) It is not relevant to Plaintiff’s 2

current claims; they do not raise any co-pay issues. Plaintiff also filed appeal SATF-33-10-

15195 regarding Defendant LeMay’s treatment for Plaintiff’s hypoglycemia. (Crum Decl.

Ex. 3.) This appeal does not encompass the breadth of improper treatment Plaintiff alleges

in this action. It was not perfected.

In his opposition Plaintiff refers to several appeals, some of which were perfected,

but none of which are relevant to Plaintiff’s current action. Specifically, Plaintiff refers to:

perfected appeal CRC-10-00297 regarding two instances in which a Correctional Officer

It is possible that Plaintiff also refers to this appeal. In his opposition, Plaintiff refers to a

2

September 28, 2010 appeal but fails to provide a copy even though he argues that it provides evidence

that he perfected his required administrative appeals. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 3.) Looking at Defendants’ smudged

copy of appeal SATF-33-10-14679 provided with their motion, it appears that it was filed on September 28,

2010 and it appears this is the appeal Plaintiff is referring to in his opposition. (Crum Decl. Ex. 2.)

However, as explained above, this appeal is not relevant because it does not deal with Plaintiff’s alleged

complete lack of medical care and does not demonstrate that Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative

remedies.

-5-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 71 Filed 10/24/12 Page 5 of 7
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

Gutierrez denied him meals (Pl.’s Opp’n at 6); un-perfected appeal SATF-B-03099 the

basis of which is not described in Plaintiff’s opposition (id. at 8); perfected appeal SATF-10-

04061 regarding a walking cane (id. at 9); perfected appeal SATF-11-00754 regarding an

incident where Plaintiff allegedly disobeyed orders (id. at 11); and rejected appeal SATF12-00475 regarding a correctional officer’s homosexual tendencies (id. at 13). None of

these appeals deal with Plaintiff’s alleged lack of medical treatment for diabetes. Many do

not even deal with events that occurred in the same time period as the events alleged in

Plaintiff’s pleading. The appeals referred to in Plaintiff’s opposition do not provide any

evidence that Plaintiff successfully exhausted his administrative appeals for his alleged

lack of medical care for diabetes.

Plaintiff has not countered the Defendants’ history of his administrative appeals.

Defendants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust

administrative remedies. A result satisfactory to him may have been available at the Office

of Third Level Appeals-Health Care for appeal SATF-33-10-14869. Plaintiff failed to

pursue that potential remedy. The Court thus recommends that Defendant’s motion to

dismiss be granted in its entirety and this action be dismissed without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants’

motion to dismiss (ECF No. 45) be granted and that 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

fourteen (14) 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 reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten 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. Y1 st, 951 F.2d 1153

-6-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 71 Filed 10/24/12 Page 6 of 7
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

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-7-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 71 Filed 10/24/12 Page 7 of 7