Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01823/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01823-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

On April 20, 2010, the summons was returned unexecuted as to Defendant 1

Sogge. (Docket No. 37.) The Court does not ask Kelly for further information to

effect service of process on Sogge, as in the normal course, because the Court

dismisses Kelly’s complaint without prejudice.

1

James Kelly v. Dr. Sogge, et al., CV 08-1823 CTB

Order re Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff James Kelly (“Kelly”), a California prisoner proceeding pro se,

sued prison doctors, Sogge and Bakewell, and prison nurses, Edmondson and

Dunn, for deliberate indifference and negligence as to his rectal bleeding, in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Government Code section 845.6. At

the preliminary screening stage, the Court dismissed Kelly’s negligence claims for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and ordered service of

process on the defendants as to Kelly’s deliberate indifference claims. Defendants

Bakewell, Edmondson, and Dunn now move to dismiss Kelly’s deliberate

indifference claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Kelly has failed to file an opposition. The Court 1

GRANTS the motion to dismiss, DENIES Kelly’s motion for medical attention as

moot, and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to close this case.

I. Background

Kelly’s complaint alleged as follows. After a prison anal rape in May 2003,

Kelly suffered rectal bleeding and constipation. (Compl. 4.) In December 2005,

Kelly sought medical treatment from the defendants, who were doctors and nurses

at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”) where Kelly was imprisoned. 

(Id. at 5.) Dr. Bakewell prescribed Kelly medication but, by December 2006, Dr.

Bakewell and Nurse Edmondson were “well aware that prescriptions alone was

[sic] not effective” to cure Kelly’s rectal bleeding. (Id.) In March 2007, Dr. Sogge

scheduled a colonoscopy for Kelly in July 2007, but the colonoscopy did not take

place until April 2008, in part because Nurse Dunn misinformed prison officials

that Kelly had received his colonoscopy in July 2007. (Id. at 6–7.) Kelly got

“sicker” due to the delay in his colonoscopy, which finally confirmed his need for

surgery to treat a “colon polyp, tubular adenoma, polypoid fragment of colonic

mucosa with hyperplastic changes and severe cautery artifact.” (Id. at 8.) Kelly

seeks over a million dollars in actual and punitive damages. (Id. at 18.)

Case 2:08-cv-01823-CTB Document 39 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 5
2

In April 2007, Kelly filed an inmate grievance with prison officials at the

CSP-SAC. This grievance, attached as Exhibit A to Kelly’s complaint, reads:

I put in sick call slips, but to no reveal [sic] on getting my medication. 

A laxative, and high blood pressure medication with Aprodine syrup,

for allige [sic] I have, and cough. I would like a log number and my

medication with a completion of This 602 Though [sic] All levels 1, 2,

[and] 3[.]

(Id., Ex. A.) Elsewhere on the grievance form Kelly mentions he has had problems

with bowel movement, and that he has run out of laxatives. (See id.) Prison

officials assigned Kelly’s grievance log number 07-00964, provided Kelly with

medication, and allowed him to appeal his grievance to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections, who denied his appeal because “the

contention that [Kelly] has not received adequate medical care is refuted by the

medical records and professional staff familiar with the appellant’s medical

history.” (Id.) The Director mistakenly noted that Nurse “Dunn confirmed that on

July 2, 2007, [Kelly] had a colonoscopy[.]” (Id.)

Kelly filed a pro se complaint against Defendants Sogge, Bakewell,

Edmondson, and Dunn for deliberate indifference and negligence as to his rectal

bleeding in violation of § 1983 and California Government Code section 845.6. 

(Docket No. 1.) This case was assigned to a magistrate judge and then a district

court judge before being reassigned on December 23, 2008 to Judge Carlos T. Bea

of the Ninth Circuit, who sits by designation. (Docket No. 8.)

At the preliminary screening stage, the Court dismissed Kelly’s negligence

claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and ordered

service of process on all of the defendants as to Kelly’s deliberate indifference

claims. (Docket No. 22.) On April 5, 2010, Defendants Bakewell, Edmondson,

and Dunn moved to dismiss the remaining deliberate indifference claims under

Rule 12(b) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Clerk of Court

served this motion on Kelly by mail on the same day. Kelly did not file an

opposition by the April 26, 2010 deadline. L.R. 230(l) (providing that a prisoner’s

“[o]pposition, if any, . . . shall be served and filed by the responding party not more

than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the motion.”). Twenty-eight

days have passed since the motion was filed and, therefore, the motion is deemed

submitted. L.R. 135, 230(l).

Case 2:08-cv-01823-CTB Document 39 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 5
3

II. Legal Standard

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . 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). This requires “a

prisoner [to] exhaust administrative remedies even where the relief sought . . .

cannot be granted by the administrative process.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,

85 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)).

The Ninth Circuit has articulated two primary purposes for this exhaustion

requirement. The first is to protect an administrative agency’s authority by giving

the agency the first opportunity to resolve a controversy before a court intervenes

in the dispute. Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2005). The second

is to promote judicial efficiency by either resolving the dispute outside of the

courts, or by producing a factual record that can aide the court in processing a

plaintiff’s claim. Id. Thus, exhaustion must occur prior to filing the suit and the

prisoner may not exhaust while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d

1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002).

The California Department of Corrections’ administrative grievance system

for prisoner complaints states that “[a]ny inmate or parolee under the department’s

jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy

which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their

welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). There are four levels of appeal:

(1) informal level, (2) first formal level, (3) second formal level, and (4) third

formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Id. § 3084.5. A final decision

from the Director’s Level satisfies the exhaustion requirement. Id.

In Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit

held that exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, and the

proper method for defendants to establish nonexhaustion is to file an unenumerated

Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, rather than a motion for summary judgment. In

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, “the court may look beyond the

pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Id. at 1120. If the Court concludes

that the prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal of the claim without prejudice. Id.

Case 2:08-cv-01823-CTB Document 39 Filed 05/05/10 Page 3 of 5
4

III. Discussion

The Court deems Kelly’s failure to oppose the motion to dismiss for failure

to exhaust as consent to the granting of the motion. See L.R. 230(l) (“Failure . . .

to file an opposition . . . may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting

of the motion[.]”). The Court also grants the motion on its merits.

Kelly alleged the defendants allowed him to go untreated for rectal bleeding

before a belated colonoscopy test revealed his need for surgery to treat a variety of

ailments. (Compl. 18.) On this factual basis, Kelly alleged deliberate indifference

in violation of the Eighth Amendment and California law. Defendants Bakewell,

Edmondson, and Dunn offer evidence that Kelly has not exhausted administrative

remedies because he has not received a final decision from the Director’s Level as

to any inmate grievance regarding rectal bleeding or failure to receive a

colonoscopy. In a signed declaration dated April 5, 2010, the Chief of Inmate

Appeals for California states: “Kelly has not received a third level decision for a

complaint regarding rectal bleeding, and failure to receive colonoscopy surgery

between 2007 and 2008.” (Mot., Foston Decl. ¶ 4.)

There is no evidence before the Court to refute this fact. Kelly’s grievance

log number 07-00964, attached as Exhibit A to Kelly’s complaint, does not raise

the same issues as in Kelly’s complaint. As the Director’s Level decision itself

notes, Kelly claimed only that

he has submitted several sick call slips for laxatives, high blood

pressure, cough syrup and allergy medication. [Kelly] claims that he

needs laxatives immediately since he has not had a bowel movement

for six days. [Kelly] requests the following on appeal. 1) To have this

appeal assigned a log number. 2) To have his medications filled. 

3) To have his appeal processed through all levels.

(Compl., Ex. A.) While Kelly clearly exhausted his grievance log number 07-

00964, it makes no mention of Dr. Bakewell and Nurse Edmondson’s alleged

failure to provide effective treatment. Nor does it mention that Dr. Bakewell,

Edmondson, and Dunn (or even Sogge) failed to treat Kelly’s rectal bleeding from

2005 to 2008. Moreover, although the Director’s Level decision mistakenly found

that Kelly had received a colonoscopy in July 2007—when, in fact, he did not

receive a colonoscopy until April 2008—that finding does not alter the substance

Case 2:08-cv-01823-CTB Document 39 Filed 05/05/10 Page 4 of 5
5

of Kelly’s grievance: Kelly did not complain about the failure to receive a

colonoscopy in the face of rectal bleeding, but rather about the failure to receive

medication in the face of constipation. (See Mot., Foston Decl. ¶ 3, “Kelly’s rectal

bleeding was not addressed at any level of review.”)

Defendants Bakewell, Edmondson, and Dunn also offer evidence that, in

December 2007, Kelly later submitted a grievance log number 08-0109 “requesting

to be re-scheduled for a colonoscopy test, and to be given effective pain medication

until the test,” but this grievance “was canceled on January 24, 2008 at the first

level of review by [a] Health Care Appeals Coordinator, pursuant to Title 15

§ 3084.4(d) based on Kelly’s lack of cooperation during the interview process on

that date.” (Mot., Pereira Decl. ¶ 3.) This evidence is inadmissible because it

appears in an unsigned, undated declaration. (Id.) Even if the Court assumes that

Kelly did submit such a grievance, the dispositive fact is that “Kelly has not

received a third level decision for a complaint regarding rectal bleeding, and failure

to receive colonoscopy surgery between 2007 and 2008.” (Mot., Foston Decl. ¶ 4,

emphasis added.) Therefore, Kelly has not exhausted his administrative remedies,

and the Court must dismiss his remaining deliberate indifference claims without

prejudice.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, the Court GRANTS Defendants Bakewell,

Edmondson, and Dunn’s motion to dismiss Kelly’s complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. The Court DISMISSES Kelly’s complaint without

prejudice. Before Kelly may refile his complaint, he must exhaust administrative

remedies as to his grievances regarding rectal bleeding and failure to receive a

colonoscopy.

The Court therefore DENIES Kelly’s motion for medical attention (Docket

No. 13) as moot, and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to close this case.

Dated: May 4, 2010 /s/ Carlos T. Bea

 United States Circuit Judge 

Case 2:08-cv-01823-CTB Document 39 Filed 05/05/10 Page 5 of 5