Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00624-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYNELL CARMICHAEL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0624 GGH P

vs.

JEFFREY ROHLFING, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

I. Introduction

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the October 14, 2009, motion to dismiss filed by

defendants Rohlfing and Dickenson pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on grounds that

plaintiff’s claims against them are barred by the statute of limitations. Also pending is the

November 2, 2009, motion to dismiss filed by defendants Rohlfing, Dickenson, Dial and James

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies.

On December 7, 2009, plaintiff filed an opposition to both motions. However,

plaintiff’s opposition addresses only the motion to dismiss arguing that his claims are barred by

the statute of limitations.

Case 2:09-cv-00624-JAM-GGH Document 21 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 6
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

After carefully reviewing the record, the court finds that the motion to dismiss on

grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies should be granted. For that

reason, the court need not reach the motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiff’s claims are barred

by the statute of limitations.

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed April 24, 2009. The

claims against each defendant are summarized below.

Defendant Rohlfing

Plaintiff alleges that on April 13, 2004, defendant Rohlfing, a medical doctor

employed at High Desert State Prison (HDSP), saw plaintiff for complaints of high blood

pressure, back pain, arthritis, bone pain, headaches and irritable bowel. Defendant Rohlfing told

plaintiff that his osteoarthritis was causing his pain and ordered blood work and a follow-up

appointment. Plaintiff saw defendant Rohlfing on April 27, 2004, and April 29, 2004, where he

complained of pain in his back, ankles, knees, elbows and bones. Defendant told plaintiff that

his osteoarthritis was causing the pain. Defendant told plaintiff that his blood work showed an

elevated alkaline phosphatase and there was nothing to be alarmed about. 

Plaintiff saw defendant Rohlfing on May 27, 2004, and June 18, 2004, for

complaints of pain in his back, ankles, knees, elbows and bones. Defendant again told plaintiff

that he had osteoarthritis that was causing the pain. 

Plaintiff alleges that he later learned that there were seven other “out of range”

items in his blood work that should have made defendant Rohlfing aware that something was

wrong. Plaintiff argues that defendant Rohlfing should have tried to find out why plaintiff’s

alkaline phosphatase level was so high. Plaintiff alleges that had defendant investigated his

blood work and sent him to an endocrinologist or a rheumatologist, it would have been

discovered that plaintiff suffers from Paget’s bone disease, osteoarthritis and vitamin D

deficiency. 

Case 2:09-cv-00624-JAM-GGH Document 21 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Defendant Dickenson

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dickenson, a medical doctor employed at HDSP,

examined plaintiff on May 18, 2004, for a cardiovascular consultation. On September 16, 2004,

and September 29, 2004, defendant Dickenson saw plaintiff as a cardiovascular chronic care

patient. During these visits, plaintiff told defendant Dickenson that he did not feel well,

experienced high blood pressure, back pain, bone pain, arthritis, headaches and irritable bowel

syndrome. Defendant told plaintiff that he had spoken with defendant Rohlfing and was aware of

his condition. Defendant Dickenson told plaintiff that he shared defendant Rohlfing’s opinion

that plaintiff’s osteoarthritis was causing him pain. He told plaintiff that he was aware of his

elevated alkaline phosphatase blood work. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant Dickenson should have sent him to an

endocrinologist or rheumatologist. Plaintiff contends that had he done so, it would have been

discovered that plaintiff suffered from Paget’s bone disease, osteoarthritis and vitamin D

deficiency. 

Defendant Dial

Plaintiff alleges that on December 13, 2004, and December 16, 2004, he was seen

by defendant Dial, a medical doctor employed at HDSP, as a chronic care patient. During these

visits, defendant Dial ordered blood work. Plaintiff also told defendant about the pain he

suffered throughout his body. On March 11, 2005, plaintiff again saw defendant Dial. At that

time, he told plaintiff that he was aware of his elevated alkaline phosphatase and his

osteoarthritis. He told plaintiff that he had gone over his chart with defendants Rohlfing and

Dickenson, and they were all of the opinion that his osteoarthritis was causing his pain. 

Plaintiff argues that defendant Dial should have sent him to an endocrinologist or

rheumatologist. Plaintiff contends that had he done so, it would have been discovered that

plaintiff suffered from Paget’s bone disease, osteoarthritis and vitamin D deficiency. 

\\\\\

Case 2:09-cv-00624-JAM-GGH Document 21 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Defendant James

Plaintiff alleges that on June 16, 2005, he was seen by defendant James, a medical

doctor employed at HDSP. At this time, plaintiff complained of pain throughout his body. 

Plaintiff told defendant James that defendants Rohlfing, Dickenson and Dial had told him that he

had osteoarthritis but he had not been sent to an endocrinologist or rheumatologist. Plaintiff told

defendant James that he thought his condition was worsening. Defendant James told plaintiff

that he had spoken with defendants Rohlfing, Dickenson and Dial and that they all had the same

opinion that plaintiff’s medical problems were under control. 

III. Analysis

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that, “[n]o 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.” 

Plaintiff was required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the

applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal

court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006). The California prison

system’s requirements “define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” See Jones v. Bock, 549

U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007). 

In order for California prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies, they must

proceed through several levels of administrative appeal: 1) informal resolution, 2) formal written

appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, 3) second level appeal to the institution head or

designee, and 4) third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. 

Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 

3084.5). A final decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion

requirement. Id. at 1237-38.

\\\\\

Case 2:09-cv-00624-JAM-GGH Document 21 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 6
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

In Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001) the Supreme Court held that inmates

must exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the relief offered through administrative

procedures. 121 S. Ct. at 1825. Therefore, inmates seeking money damages must completely

exhaust their administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002).

Defendants state that while housed at HDSP, plaintiff submitted two inmate

appeals regarding medical issues. Motion to Dismiss, Travis declaration, ¶ 5. The first appeal,

filed by plaintiff on November 3, 2003, requested that he be prescribed Vioxx for his arthritis. 

Id.,exhibit B. Plaintiff pursued this appeal to the Director’s Level of review. Id.

On August 22, 2004, plaintiff filed his second appeal regarding medical issues at

HDSP. Id., Exhibit C. In this appeal, plaintiff requested that his Celebrex prescription,

prescribed for his arthritis, be renewed. Id. This appeal was granted at the first level of review,

and plaintiff pursued it no further. Id.

Following his transfer to San Quentin State Prison, plaintiff filed one appeal

concerning medical care which concerned a request to have his dentures repaired. Motion to

Dismiss, Padilla declaration. 

As discussed above, in the instant action plaintiff alleges that had defendants not 

disregarded his blood work showing a high alkaline phosphatase level, it would have been earlier

discovered that he suffers from Paget’s bone disease and vitamin D deficiency in addition to

osteoarthritis. The grievance plaintiff pursued to the third level of review at HDSP alleged that

he was not receiving proper pain medication, in particular, Vioxx, for his osteoarthritis. This

grievance did not raise the issue of defendants’ disregard of plaintiff’s high alkaline phosphatase

level and the resulting failure to timely diagnose Paget’s disease and vitamin D deficiency, nor

was it likely to any reviewer that plaintiff would be asking in reality for a complete medical

work-up. Because this grievance did not raise the claims raised in the instant action, the

Case 2:09-cv-00624-JAM-GGH Document 21 Filed 02/12/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies should be granted. For that reason, the court need not address the motion to dismiss

arguing that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Dickenson and Rohlfing are barred by the

statute of limitations.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this action;

2. Defendants’ October 14, 2009, motion to dismiss on grounds that this action is

barred by the statute of limitations (no. 14) is disregarded;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ November 2, 2009, motion

to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies (no. 15) be granted.

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 twentyone 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 seven 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 11, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

car624.ord

Case 2:09-cv-00624-JAM-GGH Document 21 Filed 02/12/10 Page 6 of 6