Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00654/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00654-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

15-CV-0654-AJB-PCL 

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MICHAEL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM D. GORE, Sheriff of San 

Diego County; M.D. ALFRED JOSHUA, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-CV-0654-AJB-PCL

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN FULL, 

(Doc. No. 74);

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 52); AND 

(3) DECLINING TO ISSUE A 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

On August 29, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based in part 

on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 52.) An evidentiary 

hearing was held on June 15, 2017, on this issue. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

ADOPTS the Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) in full, GRANTS Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment, and DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 100 Filed 06/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

15-CV-0654-AJB-PCL 

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

BACKGROUND

This case’s factual background has been exhaustively summarized in the R&R and 

order adopting in part the R&R. (Doc. Nos. 74, 80.) The Court assumes familiarity with 

those orders and will accordingly recite here only those facts necessary to understand the 

case’s current procedural posture.

Plaintiff instituted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, alleging violations of his Eighth 

Amendment rights due to an alleged denial of medical care while incarcerated at George 

Bailey Detention Facility. On January 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Lewis issued an R&R, 

recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny 

Plaintiff’s cross motion, finding that Plaintiff offered no admissible evidence to establish 

exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 74.) 

On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the R&R, asserting, in 

relevant part, that he had submitted six written grievances on five separate occasions by 

placing them in the locked grievance box. (Doc. No. 78.) He supported his objection with 

his own declaration, detailing the circumstances surrounding each submission. (Id. at 14–

22.) This Court declined to adopt the R&R in part on March 24, 2017, finding that disputed 

material facts existed as to whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 

80 at 11–16.) The Court ordered an evidentiary hearing on this issue. (Id. at 16.)

In preparation for that hearing, the Court permitted Plaintiff to file motions to compel 

the attendance of witnesses at the evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 16–18.) Plaintiff submitted 

three such motions to compel the attendance of four incarcerated witnesses and one 

correctional officer. (Doc. Nos. 84, 86, 91.) A status conference was held on Plaintiff’s 

motions on June 2, 2017, at which time the Court granted Plaintiff’s request as to the 

correctional officer and denied Plaintiff’s request as to one incarcerated witness. (Doc. No. 

92.) Following additional briefing on the three other incarcerated witnesses, the Court 

denied Plaintiff’s request as to those witnesses for the reasons stated on the record at the 

evidentiary hearing on June 15, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 93–95.) Following that hearing, the Court 

took the matter under submission, and this order follows. 

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 100 Filed 06/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

15-CV-0654-AJB-PCL 

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

LEGAL STANDARD

The Ninth Circuit set forth the procedure district courts must follow when 

determining whether a § 1983 plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies in Albino v. 

Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court should decide exhaustion, if 

possible, before reaching the case’s merits. Id. at 1170. The district court may permit 

limited discovery, and the parties may move for summary judgment, on the issue of 

exhaustion. Id. In assessing whether summary judgment is appropriate, the district court 

must employ the usual rules governing this inquiry. Id. at 1173. Specifically, the “district 

court cannot resolve disputed questions of material fact; rather, that court must view all of 

the facts in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and rule, as a 

matter of law, based on those facts.” Id.

If the district court denies summary judgment, at that point, the district court should 

decide “disputed factual questions . . . in the same manner a judge rather than a jury decides 

disputed factual questions relevant to jurisdiction and venue.” Id. 1170–71. In making its 

assessment, the district court may undertake a “preliminary proceeding,” such as an 

evidentiary hearing. Id. at 1168. One of the purposes of an evidentiary hearing is to 

“enable[] the finder of fact to see the witness’s physical reactions to questions, to assess 

the witness’s demeanor, and to hear the tone of the witness’s voice . . . .’” United States v. 

Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 315 (9th Cir. 1995). Indeed, it is only in “rare instances [that] 

credibility may be determined without an evidentiary hearing . . . .” Earp v. Ornoski, 431 

F.3d 1158, 1169–70 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1420 (9th Cir. 

1987) (stating “[t]he district court has the discretion to take evidence at a preliminary 

hearing in order to resolve any questions of credibility or fact” when determining whether 

personal jurisdiction exists).

DISCUSSION

I. Credibility Determination and Exhaustion

At the four-hour evidentiary hearing, a total of five witnesses, including Plaintiff, 

testified. Having considered the evidence proffered by both sides, the Court finds that the 

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 100 Filed 06/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

15-CV-0654-AJB-PCL 

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

weight of the evidence supports concluding that the six written grievances Plaintiff 

purports to have submitted via the grievance box were not filed. Plaintiff’s protestations to 

the contrary, the testimony of Defendants’ witnesses render Plaintiff’s theory highly 

improbable. Lieutenant Jones undertook a detailed inquiry into whether Plaintiff submitted 

grievances, which revealed zero evidence that Plaintiff filed medical grievances on or 

around the days alleged. The medical personnel attested to the integrity of the medical 

grievance system, which involves numerous checks and balances to ensure that submitted 

grievances are logged and responded to, including the fact that the responsibility of 

collecting and logging grievances is assigned to different medical staff on different days. 

In light of Defendants’ evidence, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s testimony that he 

submitted the grievances to be credible. 

Following a de novo review of the evidence proffered, the Court concludes it is 

simply improbable that all six of Plaintiff’s grievances, purportedly placed in the grievance 

box on five separate occasions, were never received or were somehow and for some reason

all destroyed by the different employees who retrieved them from the box. Accordingly, 

the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Defendants request that the Court sanction Plaintiff for what they characterize as an 

abusive waste of the judicial process. Despite Plaintiff’s lack of candor and production of 

evidence that could not meet the basic standard of trustworthiness for admission, the Court 

exercises its discretion and denies Defendants’ request.

II. Certificate of Appealability

When a district court enters a final order adverse to the applicant in a habeas corpus 

proceeding, it must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability, which is required to 

appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate 

of appealability is appropriate only where the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate that 

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 100 Filed 06/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

15-CV-0654-AJB-PCL 

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

reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different 

manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). Here, the Court finds that 

reasonable jurists could not debate the Court’s conclusion to grant summary judgment in 

Defendants’ favor and therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

The Clerk of Court is ordered to enter judgment consistent with the order and close 

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 100 Filed 06/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5