Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02193/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02193-1/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 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS SILVA , Civil No. 09-CV-2193-W (BGS)

Plaintiff,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. No. 34.]

v.

NASARIA P. BARRERAS, et al.,

Defendants.

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Jesus Silva (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 8, 2010. (Doc. No. 6.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deprived him of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and

unusual punishment, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and were negligent under state

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 10
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 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

tort law. On September 6, 2010, Defendants Alexi, Barreras, Hatch, Khatri, Nicholas, and Tracy

(collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on the grounds that Silva failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 32.) In support of this allegation, Defendants submitted 

declarations from T. Kirby, a health care appeals coordinator at Centinela State Prison in Imperial,

California (Doc. No. 32-3); M. Rocha, a correctional counselor and appeals coordinator at the North

Kern State Prison (Doc. No. 32-4); and L. Zamora, the chief of the Office of Third Level AppealsHealthcare, in California Prison Health Care Services (Doc. No. 32-5). Defendants also moved to

dismiss on the grounds that Silva failed to state a viable claim for deliberate indifference to his medical

needs, under the Eighth Amendment. Finally, Defendants moved to dismiss Silva’s state-law

negligence claims because he failed to plead compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. (Doc. No.

32.) 

II.

PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner who was confined at the California State Prison in Solano when

he filed the FAC in March 2010. (FAC at 1.) Plaintiff complains primarily about events alleged to have

occurred at Centinela State Prison (“Centinela”) in Imperial, California during 2007. (Id.) In his FAC,

Plaintiff alleges the following supporting facts:

Plaintiff received a gunshot wound to the head in 2004 which resulted in a significant bifrontal

cerebral lesion. (FAC at 5.) One of the side effects of this injury is that Plaintiff has severe heat

intolerance. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alexi was aware of his heat intolerance and should

not have transferred him to Centinela, “one of the hottest prisons.” (Id. at 3.) Following Plaintiff’s

arrival to Centinela on December 28, 2005, he experienced a series of heat related ailments including

fainting spells, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting requiring immediate medical attention. (Id. at 5.) 

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 2 of 10
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 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

While at Centinela, Plaintiff received two “comprehensive accommodation chronos” which

stated that he must be indoors when outdoor temperatures exceed 90 degrees. (Id. at 7.) The chronos

were issued by Dr. Collinsworth on July 19, 2006, and Dr. Barreras on March 29, 2007. (Id.)

On April 30, 2007, Correctional Officer Hatch and an unnamed floor officer took Plaintiff to the

yard when it was “incredibly hot outside.” (Id. at 6.) Approximately 30 minutes later, Plaintiff began

experiencing severe head pain, dizziness, and nausea. (Id.) Plaintiff called out to the unnamed tower

officer telling him that he had “heat alert chronos” and he could not be outside in the heat. (Id.) The

officer stated, “[You’re] not on a list so thats your problem, you have to wait until yard recall.” (Id.) 

After about 45 minutes, Plaintiff started to lose consciousness and other inmates in the yard began

yelling and rallying to the tower officer to let Plaintiff inside and to call for medical help. (Id.) The

tower officer called the medical department and asked if Plaintiff had any heat chronos. (Id.) Upon

confirming that Plaintiff had heat chronos, Correctional Officer Hatch arrived and escorted Plaintiff to

his cell. (Id.) Plaintiff was locked in his cell where he fainted and cracked open his head. (Id.) 

Plaintiff awoke as he was being taken to the Central Treatment Center. (Id. at 7.) 

On June 16, 2007, Plaintiff was sent to the yard by an unnamed floor officer. (Id.) Plaintiff was

locked outside in over 90 degree temperatures and subsequently suffered a heat stroke. (Id.) He had a

syncopal episode, possible seizures, disorientation, severe memory loss, and an axillary temperate of

101.6 degrees. (Id.) Plaintiff contends, that as a result, he has decreased strength, feeling, and mobility

on the right side of his body. (Id. at 8.) 

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 3 of 10
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

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate formal administrative appeals

process underwent a major revision in 2011, including the discontinuation of the informal appeal process. See

2011 CA REG TEXT 248824 (NS).

4 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

III.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

Defendants seek to dismiss the FAC in its entirety because Silva failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies concerning the allegations in the FAC. 

A. Exhaustion Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)

1. Legal Standard

Under the PLRA, prisoners are required to exhaust prison administrative procedures before filing

a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim challenging prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (1996). The exhaustion

requirement applies to all claims relating to prison life that do not implicate the duration of the

prisoner’s sentence. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-32 (2002). 

An inmate must comply with prison grievance procedures to “properly exhaust” his

administrative remedies under the PLRA. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 217-18 (2007). “The level of

detail necessary in a [prison] grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system

to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the

boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Id. at 218. In California, inmates have the right to appeal

administratively “any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals

as adversely affecting their welfare.” 15 Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a)1. California also provides

prisoners the right to file appeals alleging misconduct by correctional officers and officials. Id.

 § 3084.1(e). At the time of the alleged incidents and when Plaintiff began his appeal process, in order

to exhaust available administrative remedies, a prisoner was required to proceed through several levels

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 4 of 10
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

Under California Code of Regulations Title 15, § 3084.5(a)(3), the informal level of appeal was

bypassed for appeals of (1) classification committee actions; (2) serious disciplinary infractions; (3) classification

staff representative actions; (4) departmental regulations, policies, or operational procedures; (5) exceptional

circumstances defined in section 3084.7; (6) any action which the appeals coordinator determines cannot be

resolved informally; (7) alleged misconduct by a departmental peace officer; or (8) the denial of disabled inmate

or parolee requests for reasonable modification or accommodation filed on CDC Form 1824 (1/95), Reasonable

Modification Or Accommodation Request, pursuant to section 3085.

3

The appeals coordinator could elect to bypass an appeal at the First Formal level and submit it directly to

the Second Formal Level for (1) a policy or procedure implemented by the institution head; (2) a policy,

procedure or regulation implemented by the department; (3) an issue which cannot be resolved at the division

head’s level; e.g., appeal of a regular transfer; (4) serious disciplinary infractions. Cal. Code Regs tit. 15,

§3084.5(b).

4

Only matters involving involuntary transfers to the California Medical Facility or Atascadero State

Hospital bypassed the Second Formal Level and were submitted directly to the Third Formal Level. Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.5 (c); 3084.7(d)(4)(B).

5 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

of appeal: (1) informal resolution2; (2) formal written appeal in a 602 inmate appeal form3; (3) second

level appeal to the institution head or designee4

; and (4) third level appeal to the Director of the

California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. Id. § 3084.5; Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262,

1264-65 (9th Cir. 2009). The administrative process is exhausted only after the inmate complies with all

relevant prison grievance procedures, and receives a decision from the Director’s level. Woodford v.

Ngo, 548 U.S. 91, 95-96 (9th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the administrative process must be completely

exhausted before the inmate files the Complaint. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.

2006). 

The exhaustion requirement imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading

requirement, but rather is an affirmative defense which defendants have the burden of raising and

proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). “In

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, a court may look beyond a pleading and decide

disputed issues of fact.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010); see Ritza v. Int’l

Longshormen’s & Warehouse Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988) (permitting the consideration of

affidavits submitted by the parties on a motion to dismiss nonjudicial remedies). If the court concludes

that the prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 5 of 10
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

California Code of Regulations Title 15, §3084.8(b) now provides the time limits for submitting an

appeal. Inmates now must submit the appeal within 30 calendar days of the event or decision being appealed.

6 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

without prejudice. Id.

2. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

In the FAC, Plaintiff checked the box indicating that he exhausted his administrative remedies.

(FAC at 13.) The information presented by Plaintiff and Defendants, however, indicates that this is not

the case. 

In the FAC, Plaintiff attaches two administrative appeals submitted while he was at California

State Prison, Solano. (Doc. No. 6-2 at 2, 6-4 at 2.) Plaintiff submitted his first appeal on October 9,

2008 regarding renewing his heat chrono. (Doc. No. 6-2 at 2.) Plaintiff submitted his second appeal on

June 1, 2009. (Doc No. 6-4). The June 1, 2009 appeal asked for Social Security Disability Insurance,

memory cognitive testing and therapy, and job therapy. (Doc. No. 6-4 at 3.) No references to the facts

alleged in the FAC about Plaintiff’s exposure to heat at Centinela or Defendants’ failure to transfer

Plaintiff out of Centinela exists in either appeal. 

Furthermore, when Plaintiff submitted his appeals, prisoners had to submit an appeal within 15

days of the occurrence of the event or decision being appealed. 15 Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, 

§ 3084.6(c))5

. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that the last violation occurred on June 16, 2007. Yet, the

appeals attached to the FAC were filed on October 9, 2008 and June 1, 2009. (Doc. No. 6 at 7.) 

Therefore, even if the these appeals are construed in such a way that they relate to the facts alleged in

the FAC, they were not filed within the prescribed time limit. Accordingly, the appeals would be

untimely, still rendering Plaintiff’s claims unexhausted. 

Defendants bear the burden of proving that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative

remedies; thus, the Court looks to the evidence presented by Defendants to decide the issue. Defendants

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 6 of 10
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

7 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

provided information regarding Plaintiff’s inmate appeals through declarations from T. Kirby, a health

care appeals coordinator at Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California (Doc. No. 32-3); M. Rocha, a

correctional counselor and appeals coordinator at the North Kern State Prison (Doc. No. 32-4); and L.

Zamora, the chief of the Office of Third Level Appeals-Healthcare. (Doc. No. 32-5). Furthermore, the

Court also reviewed inmate appeals Plaintiff submitted prior to August 2007, since the FAC alleges that

the last violation occurred on June 16, 2007,

 and at this time inmates were required to submit their appeals within 15 calendar days of the occurrence

of the event or decision being appealed. 15 Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(c)).

 The Office of Third Level Appeals-Healthcare logs all inmate appeals into a computer database

known as the Healthcare Appeals Tracking System. (Doc. No. 32-5 at 2.) According to L. Zamora’s

declaration, a search of the Healthcare Appeals Tracking System records reveals that prior to 2007,

Plaintiff never received a director’s level decision, as required to effectively exhaust administrative

remedies. (Doc. No. 32-5.) Declarations from T. Kirby and M. Rocha also reveal that prior to 2008,

Plaintiff did not submit any inmate appeals for review at the third and final level of departmental

administrative review. (Doc. No. 32-3, 32-4.) Finally, in the instance that either of Plaintiff’s appeals

remain pending and have not made it to the final level of review, Plaintiff also fails to meet the PLRA

exhaustion requirement since all appeals must be completed prior to commencing the action. Vaden,

449 F.3d at 1051. Thus, Defendants have carried their burden to prove that Plaintiff did not exhaust the

administrative remedies available to him. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies, and recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be GRANTED without

prejudice. 

B. Compliance With California Government Claims Act

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent in performing their job duties by transferring

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 7 of 10
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

8 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

him to Centinela and failing to follow the appropriate heat alert procedures. (FAC at 8.) Plaintiff

further alleges that as a result of their negligence he suffered injuries. (Id.)

1. Legal Standard

When defendants are public employees, the plaintiff must first submit a claim to the public entity

that employs the defendants before filing a lawsuit seeking money damages for violations of California

law. Cal.Gov’t Code § 945.4, 950.2. The statue requires that, before filing suit, an individual seeking to

recover in tort against a public entity for claims relating to injury to a person must present the claim to

the entity “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” Cal.Gov’t Code § 950.2. 

Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the

claimant’s ability to maintain an action against the public entity. Harman v. Mono Gen. Hosp., 

182 Cal.Rptr. 570, 573 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). 

Thus, a plaintiff must affirmatively allege facts “demonstrating or excusing compliance with the

claim presentation requirement.” State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243 

(Cal. Ct. App. 2004). The requirement that a plaintiff asserting claims subject to the California Torts

Claims Act must affirmatively allege compliance with the claims filing requirement applies in federal

court as well. Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1988). If a plaintiff does not

allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement, his claims under the California Tort Claims

Act will be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Bodde, 32 Cal.4th 32 Cal.4th at 1243. 

2. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

The record shows that Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the California Torts Claims Act

concerning his negligence claims. (Doc. No. 6.) In his FAC, Plaintiff lists “negligence under state tort

law” as a cause of action against Defendants, but fails to provide evidence of any claim submitted to the

public entity that employs Defendants. (FAC at 5.) Additionally, because the FAC fails to allege facts

///

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 8 of 10
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

9 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

demonstrating that Plaintiff was excused from complying with the timely claims presentation

requirement, the Court recommends that the state torts claims be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

C. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim

Defendants discuss in length why Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a viable claim

under the Eighth Amendment against any of the Defendants. However, as addressed above, the Court

finds that Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies and recommends that the FAC be

dismissed for that reason. Thus, the Court recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) be DENIED as moot.

IV. 

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the matter, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and the Complaint be dismissed. 

In addition, the Court recommends that Plaintiff be DENIED leave to amend because (1)

amending the complaint would be futile because it is too late for him to exhaust his administrative

remedies; and (2) since no federal cause of action remains, the Court should decline jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s pendent state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1376(c)).

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than seventeen days after receiving a copy this Report &

Recommendation, any party to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on

all parties. This document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

///

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 9 of 10
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

10 09-cv-2193-W (BGS)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objection shall be filed with the Court and

served on all parties within 10 days of being served with the objections. 

DATED: February 17, 2012

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02193-W-BGS Document 34 Filed 02/17/12 Page 10 of 10