Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02264/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02264-1/pdf.json

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

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 10\3 JUH-3 ~t~ 2: 08 

3 CU.. SO UTi-\ !:.~ It .'-' ~ '.' - • ,,\ " 

4 IlY __- " ...... 1 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 DONNIE SCOTT, 

CDCR #P-20828, 12 

Plaintiff, 13 

14 

vs. 

16 

17 HOMER; S. VASQUEZ; MARTINEZ; 

A. PITTMAN; E. BENYARD; JOHN 18 	 DOEj

· WALKER; D. PARAMO; 

CAL FORNIA DEP'T OF 19 CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, 

Defendants. 21 

22 

23 

2411 I. 

Civil 12cv2264 WQH (JMA)

No. 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF'S SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 

12(b); and 

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 

[ECF Nos. 44, 53] 

26 

27 

28 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Donnie Scott ("Plaintiff'), a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") located in San Diego, California, proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 

1:lEveryonel_EFILE-PROSEIWQH\12cv2264-Gn MTD #2.wpd 1 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 1 of 9
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

September 17, 2012. Currently, Plaintiff is proceeding with his Second Amended 

Complaint ("SAC") which was filed on February 27,2013. [ECF No. 39.] 

Defendants Benyard, Walker, Homer, Pittman, Paramo, Martinez and the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") filed a Motion to 

Dismiss pursuant to FED.R.Crv.P. 12(b ).1 [ECF No. 44.] On March 13,2013, Defendant 

Vasquez filed a joinder to the Defendants' Motion. [ECF No. 45.] Plaintiff has filed an 

Opposition to which Defendants have filed a Reply. [ECF Nos. 49, 50.] The Court has 

determined that Defendants' Motion is suitable for disposition upon the papers without 

oral argument and that no Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Jan M. 

Adler is necessary. See S.D. CAL. CIvLR 7.1(d)(1), 72.3(e). 

II. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

On December 1, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred from Centinela State Prison 

("CEN") to the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD"). (See SAC at 3.) 

Plaintiff had been classified at CEN as a participant in a disability placement program 

"restricting plaintiff from upper bunk, upper terrain, and authorizing use of cane." (ld.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he has a "documented history of serious chronic back conditions." 

(Id.) On June 11, 2012, Corrections Officer Orrosco provided a memo to Correctional 

Officers Hernandez and Estardian2 informing them to move Plaintiff to an "upper bunk 

while placing another inmate in plaintiff's lower tier bottom bunk." (ld.) 

Plaintiff informed the Third Watch Sergeant Perez that he was a participant in the 

disability placement pro gram and Sergeant Perez then verified Plaintiff's disability. (ld. 

at 4.) As a result, Correctional Officers Hernandez and Estardian moved Plaintiff to a 

1 The Court takes judicial notice that Defendants have provided Plaintiff notice 

of his oPRortunity to develop a record and to include in his ORPosition to Defendants' 

Motion whatever arguments and documentary evidence he may nave to show that he did, 

in fact, exhaust all administrative remedies as were available to him 8rior to filing suit 

as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 20 3). [ECF No. 44­

6.] 

2 Correctional Officers Orrosco, Hernandez and Estardian are not named as 

Defendants in this action. 

[:lEveryoneLEFILE-PROSEIWQHll2cv2264-Grt MTD #2.wpd 2 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 2 of 9
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 

cell with a bottom bunk on a lower tier. (ld.) Two days later, Plaintiff alleges Defendant 

Vasquez "tossed" his cell and told Plaintiff that he would "be moving again in a couple 

of days." (ld.) On June 15, 2012, Defendant Vasquez "took the plaintiff's lower tierbottom bunk" but promised him he would move him back the next day. (ld.) When 

Plaintiff followed up with Vasquez the following day, Plaintiff claims Vasquez "got 

upset" and "locked the plaintiff up in Ad-Seg [administrative segregation]." (/d.) 

Plaintiff was then issued a serious rules violation report for refusing a housing 

assignment. (ld.) 

Plaintiff alleges he informed Vasquez that Sergeant Perez had already confrrmed 

Plaintiff's disability, to which he claims Vasquez responded by saying "Sergeant Perez 

did not know nothing!" (ld.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pittman is the supervisor 

of Defendant Vasquez but refused to intervene. (ld.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

Pittman "did nothing about staff taking away plaintiff's cane and handcuffing the 

plaintiff's hands behind his back." (ld.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Martinez was the 

officer in charge of housing Ad -Seg and placed him in an upper bunk despite of the fact 

that Defendant Martinez was aware of Plaintiff's disability. (ld. at 5.) 

On June 18, 2012, Defendant Benyard held a hearing relating to Plaintiff's serious 

rules violation report and told Plaintiff that he would move Plaintiff to general 

popUlation. (ld.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Benyard told Plaintiff that he was 

"playing games" and he would assign him to an upper bunk and "take away his cane." 

(ld.) 

On June 21, 2012, the classification committee for Ad-Seg convened and 

Defendant Paramo, the Warden for RJD, informed Plaintiff that he would need to 

"update" his chrono in order to be housed in a lower tier, lower bunk cell. (ld.) Plaintiff 

explained that this is unnecessary as he had a form that demonstrated his disabilities. 

(ld.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Paramo "threatened to move the plaintiff' to a top 

bunk on a top tier. (ld.) Plaintiff alleges that a physician and classification committee 

member "interjected that the plaintiff's CDC 1845 chrono was permanent" and Plaintiff's 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\12cv2264-Grt MID #2.wpd 3 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 3 of 9
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 

claims were legitimate. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Paramo "continued 

to try and persuade the plaintiff into accepting an upper bunk housing assignment." (ld.) 

Defendant Paramo told Plaintiff that if he continued to refuse his housing assignment, 

he would receive another rules violation report. (ld.) 

Plaintiff remained in Ad-Seg housed in a top tier following the hearing before the 

classification committee. (Id.) On June 21, 2012, Defendant Homer, whom Plaintiff 

alleges is the correctional counselor in charge of assisting inmates under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), came to Plaintiffs cell in Ad-Seg "instructing the 

plaintiff to cooperate with staff." (ld.) A few days later on June 28, 2012, Defendant 

Paramo decided to "temporarily place" Plaintiff in a lower tier, lower bunk cell "pending 

medical re-evaluation." (Id.) Plaintiff was later found "not guilty" ofrefusing a housing 

assignment. (ld.) 

III. 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.p.12(b) 

Defendants move to dismiss the entirety ofPlaintiffs Second Amended Complaint 

on the grounds that it should be dismissed for failing to exhaust available administrative 

remedies pursuant to FED.R.Crv.P. 12(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

A. Standard of Review per FED.R.CIV.P.12(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 

Defendants contends that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative 

remedies as to the claims against them pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) before bringing 

this suit, therefore, Defendants seek dismissal under the "non-enumerated" provisions 

of FED.R.Clv.P. 12(b). The Ninth Circuit has held that "failure to exhaust nonjudicial 

remedies is a matter of abatement" not going to the merits of the case and is properly 

raised pursuant to a motion to dismiss, including a non-enumerated motion under 

FED.R.Crv.P. 12(b). See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Nonexhaustion of administrative remedies as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is an 

affirmative defense which defendant prison officials have the burden of raising and 

provmg. See Jones v. Bock, 594 U.S. 199,216 (2007); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119. 

1:\Everyone'-EF1LE-PROSElWQH\J2cv2264-Gn M11) #2.wpd 4 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 4 of 9
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 

However, unlike under Rule 12(b)(6), "[i]n deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to 

exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide 

disputed issues of fact." Wyatt, F.3d at 1120. 

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies per 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) to 

provide that "[ 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). "Once 

within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in cases covered by § 1997 e( a) is 

now mandatory." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,524 (2002). 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) has 

been construed broadly to "afford!] corrections officials time and opportunity to address 

complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case," Porter, 534 F.3d 

at 525, and to encompass all inmate suits about both general circumstances and particular 

episodes of prison life--including incidents of alleged excessive force. See id. at 532. 

Finally, "[t]he 'available' 'remed[y]' must be 'exhausted' before a complaint under § 

1983 may be entertained," "regardless of the relief offered through administrative 

procedures." Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738, 741 (2001); see also McKinney v. 

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,1200-01 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The State of California provides its prisoners and parolees the right to 

administratively appeal "any departmental policies, decisions, actions, conditions, or 

omissions that have a material adverse effect on the welfare of inmates and parolees." 

CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 15 § 3084.1(a) (2011). Prior to January 28, 2011, in order to 

exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner would proceed 

through several levels: (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. CAL. 

CODE REGS., tit. 15 § 3084.1(a) (2010). However, in January 2011, the process was 

changed. Following January 28, 2011, prison regulations no longer required an inmate 

I:lEveryonel_EFlLE-PROSEIWQH\12cv2264-Grt MID #2.wpd 5 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 5 of 9
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 

to submit to infonnal resolution while the other remaining levels remain the same. CAL. 

CODE REGS. tit. 15 § 3084.5 (2011). 

C. Application of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) to Plaintiff's Case 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff filed several administrative grievances but failed 

to properly file any ofthe appeals or attempt to correct deficiencies in his filings as noted 

by the responses ofthe appeals coordinators. Defendants supply the declarations ofL.D. 

Zamora, Chief of the Inmate Correspondence and Appeals Branch [ECF No. 44-2], J. 

Ramirez, Appeals Coordinator for RJD [ECF No. 44-3], Jodie Rivera, Health Care 

Appeals Coordinator for RJD [ECF No. 44-4] and J.D. Lozano, Chief of the Office of 

Appeals [ECF No. 44-5]. 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff contends that he was not required to exhaust his 

administrative remedies with regard to his claims brought pursuant to the ADA. (See 

Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mtn. to Dismiss at 6.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that because 

he is "suing under the 'Public Entity" provisions of Title II" of the ADA, he is not 

required to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing this litigation. (ld.) 

However, the Court agrees with Defendants that Ninth Circuit authority directly 

contradicts Plaintiff s argument. The Ninth Circuit has held that "exhaustion [pursuant 

to § 1997e(a)] is required for ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims" brought by inmates. 

o'Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056,1060-61 (9th Cir. 2007). The 

Ninth Circuit recognized that while Title II of the ADA itself did not contain a specific 

provision requiring administrative exhaustion before filing suit, neither did Title II ofthe 

ADA provide for an "exception to the PLRA exhaustion requirement." Id. at 1061. 

Therefore, "the plain language of § 1997e(a) and relevant Supreme Court authority 

require prisoners bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims to exhaust those claims 

through available administrative remedies before filing suit." Id. at 1062. 

As stated above, Defendants have submitted the declarations of several prison 

officials regarding Plaintiff s attempts to file administrative grievances relating to the 

claims found in his Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has also attached his 

1:\EveryoneLEFILE-PROSE\WQHlI2cv2264-Grt MTD #2.wpd 6 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 6 of 9
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 

grievances that he filed to his Second Amended Complaint and his Opposition. In 

Plaintiff's declaration in Opposition to Defendants' Motion, he identifies a grievance that 

he filed on July 6, 2012 as one that addresses the issues found in his Second Amended 

Complaint. See Pl.'s Decl. in Opp'n at en 3. Plaintiff also supplies the grievance as an 

exhibit to his declaration. Id., InmatelParolee Appeal dated July 6,2012, Log No. RJDA-12-1926. However, while Plaintiff may have filed this grievance, Defendants have 

shown that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative grievances. 

In his declaration, J. Ramirez demonstrates that this grievance was initially 

rejected on September 15,2012 for "failure to attach supporting documents pursuant to 

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, § 3084.6(bO(7)." See Ramirez Decl, 17(e), 

Exhibit "E," Screening letter dated September 15, 2012, Log No. RJD-A-12-01926. 

Plaintiff continued to submit this grievance and each time his grievance was rejected for 

failing to comply with the regulations. The declaration of J.D. Lozano indicates that the 

third and final level of the grievance process never received or considered a grievance 

arising from the claims made by Plaintiff and which are found in his Second Amended 

Complaint. See Lozano Decl. 117-8. 

Plaintiff filed another grievance relating to the medical issues raised in his Second 

Amended Complaint on August 14, 2012. See P!.'s Dec!. in Opp'n, PatientJInmate 

Health Care Appeal dated Aug. 14,2012, Log No. RJD HC 12046760. This grievance 

was denied at the first and second level of review by the RJD appeals staff. See Rivera 

DecL at 17. In the declaration ofL.D. Zamora, he indicates that Plaintiff had failed to 

submit the denial of these grievances to the third and final level of review. See Zamora 

Decl. at f1[ 8-9. 

Plaintiff acknowledges that nearly all of his grievances were "screened out" for 

failing to properly follow the regulations. See Pl.'s Decl. in Opp'n at fi 5-14. As to 

each time Plaintiff s grievance was rejected, Plaintiff argues that the reason given was 

an insufficient basis upon which to base the rejection. Id. Plaintiff argues in one 

instance that Defendants' failure to inform him of the specific documents he needed to 

1:1E=;'One'LEHLE·PROSEIWQH\I2cv2264-Grt MTD #2.wpd 7 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 7 of 9
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 

attach to his grievance failed to comply with their regulations demonstrates that they 

prevented him from being able to properly exhaust. [d. at I)l6. However, the regulations 

guiding the rejection of appeals states that an appeal may be rejected if the "appeal is 

incomplete or necessary supporting documents are not attached." CAL. CODEREos., tit. 

15 § 3084.3( c )(5). Plaintiff was then informed that he must resubmit his appeal with the 

forms referenced in his grievance and was specifically told to include forms "1845" and 

"7410." See Ramirez Decl., Screening at the First Level, dated September 8, 2012, Log 

No. RJD-B-12-01842. There is no documentation supplied by Plaintiff to demonstrate 

that he ever attempted to correct the stated deficiencies of his appeals. Thus, Plaintiff's 

continued assertions that he was not informed as to how to "fix" the problems with his 

grievances is not adequately supported by the record. 

The Supreme Court has made clear that Plaintiff must "properly exhaust" his 

administrative remedies before filing a prison conditions action. In Woodford v. Ngo, 

548 U.S. 81, 91 (2006), the Supreme Court held that "[p]roper exhaustion demands 

compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no 

adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on 

the course of its proceedings." Woodford, 548 U.S. at 91. The Court further held that 

"[proper exhaustion] means ... a prisoner must complete the administrative review 

process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules ... as a precondition to bring 

suit in federal court." [d. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to submit 

adequate evidence to rebut Defendants' showing that he failed to properly exhaust his 

administrative grievances prior to bringing this action. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failing to exhaust his administrative 

remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This dismissal is without prejudice to 

permit Plaintiff to file a separate action once he has properly exhausted his 

administrative remedies. 

I:\Everyone'-EPlLE-PROSE\WQH\I2<v2264-Grt MTD l12.wpd 8 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

II 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 8 of 9
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 

IV. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and he has supplied the 

Court with the proposed pleading. [ECF No. 53.] The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's 

proposed Third Amended Complaint and finds that it fails to overcome the failure to 

properly exhaust his administrative grievances before filing this action as required by 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental 

Complaint is DENIED. 

~ 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby: 

(1) GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended 

Complaint [ECF Nos. 44,45] for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant 

to FED.R.Crv.P. 12(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) without prejudice. 

(2) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint [ECF 

No. 53]. 

(3) The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _--"f,,---,--/J_.J1--<-//-=-/__3"",--­

I:\Everyone\_EFlLE-PROSE\WQH\I2cv2~64-0rt MID #2.wpd 9 12cv2264 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 56 Filed 06/03/13 Page 9 of 9