Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01916-29/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.

No. 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 127, 130, 156)

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

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on plaintiff’s claims of deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on his 

allegations that the defendant prison officials failed to treat his Hepatitis C Virus and related 

medical conditions. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 12, 2019, Defendant Dileo moved for summary judgment on the ground that 

plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not naming Dr. Dileo in his inmate 

health care appeal. (Doc. No. 127.) On July 19, 2019, Defendant Akanno also moved for 

summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by 

not naming Dr. Akanno in his inmate heath care appeal. (Doc. No. 130.)

/////

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 166 Filed 03/23/20 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

On February 27, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motions for summary judgment be denied. 

(Doc. No. 156.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections thereto must be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 4.) On 

March 12, 2020, Defendant Akanno filed his objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations and on March 18, 2020, Defendant Dileo filed his objections. (Doc. Nos. 159

and 165.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including defendants’ objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

The pending findings and recommendations rely on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Reyes v. 

Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016) in recommending that defendants’ motions be denied even 

though plaintiff violated a procedural rule established by state regulation by not naming them in 

his inmate grievance, because prison officials had notice of the issue being presented by plaintiff 

in his inmate grievance and denied that grievance on its merits. (Doc. No. 156 at 2–3.)

In Reyes, the prisoner plaintiff filed an inmate grievance complaining of changes to his 

pain medication regimen. Id. at 655-56. After exhausting his available administrative remedies 

by proceeding through California’s three-level inmate grievance appeal process, the plaintiff filed 

a § 1983 action naming a number of prison officials as defendants, including two doctors not 

previously named in his inmate grievance. Id. at 656. The Ninth Circuit, reversing the district 

court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claims against the two doctors, explained as follows:

The PLRA provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect 

to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, 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). Section 1997e(a) 

requires an inmate not only to pursue every available step of the 

prison grievance process but also to adhere to the “critical 

procedural rules” of that process. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 

90, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). “[I]t is the prison’s 

requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 166 Filed 03/23/20 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

proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S. Ct. 

910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).

The California prison grievance system has three levels of review; 

an inmate exhausts administrative remedies by obtaining a decision 

at each level. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b) (2011); Harvey 

v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010). It is uncontested that 

Reyes obtained a decision at all three levels. The issue is whether 

he nevertheless failed to exhaust administrative remedies because 

his grievance did not name all staff members involved in his case. 

See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a) (2015).

* * *

When 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. Dismissing the inmate’s claim for 

failure to exhaust under these circumstances does not advance the 

statutory goal of avoiding unnecessary interference in prison

administration. Rather, it prevents the courts from considering a 

claim that has already been fully vetted within the prison system.

* * *

[A] prisoner exhausts “such administrative remedies as are 

available,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), under the PLRA despite failing to 

comply with a procedural rule if prison officials ignore the 

procedural problem and render a decision on the merits of the 

grievance at each available step of the administrative process. 

Id. at 657-58. Because prison officials reviewed and decided plaintiff’s inmate grievance at every 

level of the administrative process on the merits, the Ninth Circuit held in Reyes that the plaintiff 

had adequately exhausted all of his administrative remedies prior to bringing suit as required 

under the PLRA, even though his inmate grievance did not name all prison staff members 

involved in his case. Id.

In their objections to the pending findings and recommendations, defendants largely 

reiterate the arguments that they raised in their motions for summary judgment and in their replies 

to plaintiff’s oppositions—arguments that were already addressed by the findings and 

recommendations. Defendants assert that Reyes is not applicable. (Doc. Nos. 159 at 2; 165 at 4.) 

But the cases they cite to support their arguments in this regard are unavailing because the 

circumstances that make those cases distinguishable from Reyes are not present here. For 

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 166 Filed 03/23/20 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

example, defendant Akanno cites Bruister v. Asuncion, No. 2:17-cv-05106-PSG-RAO, 2019 WL 

1744215, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:17-cv05106-PSG-RAO, 2019 WL 6655388 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2019), in which the plaintiff’s inmate 

grievance named three specific correctional officers involved in an excessive force incident, and 

plaintiff brought a civil rights action not only against those three officers but also against other 

officers who he had not named in his inmate grievance. The court found that the plaintiff had not 

exhausted his administrative remedies against the officers not named in his grievance because it 

did “not appear that prison officials ignored Plaintiff’s violation of this procedural rule as there is 

nothing in Plaintiff’s grievance to alert the prison that he was complaining about any unnamed 

officers” and “the appeals examiners did not reference these [other] Defendants or consider any 

excessive force claims against any unnamed officers in their decisions.” Id. In contrast to 

Bruister, and as stated in the pending findings and recommendations, here, plaintiff’s inmate 

grievance “did not just fail to list defendants Akanno and Dileo; it failed to ‘list’ any defendants, 

much less give titles and describe involvement.” (Doc. No. 156 at 2.) Nevertheless, prison

officials processed plaintiff’s grievance through all levels and prison officials decided plaintiff’s 

appeal on its merits. (Id.)

Defendant Akanno also argues that plaintiff could not possibly exhaust administrative 

remedies against him because he was not involved in plaintiff’s medical care until after plaintiff 

filed his inmate grievance. The court is not persuaded by this argument because, unlike the 

officers in Bruister, here the decision at the third-level of review (the “director’s level decision”) 

specifically references plaintiff’s medical visits on May 28, 2015 and June 15, 2015, when 

plaintiff was seen by defendant Akanno. (See Doc. Nos. 127-4 at 24; 130 at 5, 9.) 

The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Reyes is squarely 

on point and finds no error with the analysis set forth in the pending findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 156 at 2.) Moreover, defendants’ objections provide no basis upon 

which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.

/////

/////

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 166 Filed 03/23/20 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

Accordingly,

1. The finding and recommendations issued on February 27, 2020 (Doc. No. 156)

are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

his administrative remedies (Doc. Nos. 127, 130) are denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 166 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 5