Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01585-13/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

MARK L. PAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1585 MCE KJM P

vs.

G. STRATTON, Warden, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Brimhall, Smith

and B. Williams (defendants) on September 15, 2006 is now before the court, following

plaintiff’s filing of an opposition on September 4, 2007. 

I. Defendant Smith

Defendants’ first argument is that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Smith

should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to

those claims prior to filing suit. A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies prior to filing suit arises under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 09/11/07 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

disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1120. If the district court concludes that the prisoner has not

exhausted non-judicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice. 

Id.

The exhaustion requirement is rooted in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983

of this title, . . . until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) regulations

provide administrative procedures in the form of one informal and three formal levels of review

to address plaintiff’s claims. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.7. Administrative

procedures generally are exhausted once a prisoner has received a “Director’s Level Decision,”

or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. All

steps must be completed before a civil rights action is filed, unless a plaintiff demonstrates a step

is unavailable to him; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation will not save an action

from dismissal. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendants bear the

burden of proving plaintiff’s failure to exhaust. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U. S. 810 (2003).

In one section of his complaint, Plaintiff complains about actions taken by

defendant Smith on and after April 26, 2005. Second Am. Compl. (Compl.) ¶¶ 28-32. Because

this action was commenced on August 6, 2004, plaintiff could not have exhausted administrative

remedies with respect to his claims against defendant Smith before filing in this court. 

Therefore, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Smith be

dismissed.

II. Defendants Brimhall and B. Williams

Defendants assert that some of plaintiff’s claims against defendants Brimhall and

B. Williams are time-barred. Because section 1983 does not contain a statute of limitations,

federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Johnson

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 09/11/07 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

v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 653 (9th Cir. 2000). When not inconsistent with federal law, federal

courts also apply the law of the forum state regarding tolling. Id. Federal law controls the

question of when a claim accrues. Id. Under federal law, a claim accrues when plaintiff knows,

or should know, of the injury that is the basis of his cause of action. Id.

In California, the limitations period applicable to plaintiff’s claims is two years. 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. The limitations period also is tolled for a period not to exceed two

years while the plaintiff is incarcerated. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1. 

Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Brimhall are not time-barred. Plaintiff

complains Brimhall denied plaintiff prescribed medication for his liver troubles for the four years

prior to plaintiff filing his second amended complaint, or in other words since about August

2001. Compl. ¶¶ 19-22. It appears undisputed that plaintiff has been incarcerated for this entire

time, entitling him to tolling of two years of that time. Mot. To Dismiss at 11:11-14. His claims

against Brimhall thus were filed within the limitations period. 

Plaintiff asserts defendant B. Williams failed to provide plaintiff adequate medical

care for his liver between 2000 and 2005. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-27. It is not clear from plaintiff’s

complaint whether any of plaintiff’s claims accrued before August 6, 2000, which is the earliest

point in time when claims could have accrued, working backwards from the date of filing of the

original complaint. Given that most if not all of plaintiff’s claims against B. Williams are timely,

granting this aspect of defendants’ motion at this stage of litigation would not be appropriate. 

Finally, defendants assert that plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state

claims upon which relief can be granted against defendants Brimhall and B. Williams. In

considering such a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of the

complaint in question, Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), and

construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974), abrogated on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). In

order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “a

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 09/11/07 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

 Defendants suggest they are entitled to dismissal because the claims identified in 1

plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendants Brimhall and B. Williams are not necessarily

supported by facts provided in exhibits attached to plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants are correct

that courts can consider documents a plaintiff attaches to his complaint in ruling on a motion to

dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08

(9th Cir. 2003). Just because exhibits are attached to a complaint does not necessarily mean

those exhibits provide the entire universe of facts concerning a particular claim. In other words,

if there is no factual support for a particular claim in an exhibit attached to a complaint, that does

not mean the claim must be dismissed. If the exhibits showed definitively that plaintiff has not

stated or could not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that would be a different

matter. Cf. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 989, as amended, 275 F.3d 1187

(9th Cir. 2001). Such is not the case here. 

4

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”; it must contain factual allegations

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

 U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the

statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.”’ Erickson, 127 S.Ct. at 2200.1

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment extends to

medical care of prison inmates. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). In order to state

a section 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care, a

prison inmate must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs.” Id. at 106. 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Brimhall was aware of plaintiff’s liver problems and

failed to provide any treatment, causing plaintiff to suffer “severe and debilitating” pain. Also,

plaintiff indicates he was prescribed a regimen of medication by doctors at U.C. Davis, but

Brimhall failed to provide plaintiff with the medication. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18-22. These

allegations state a cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant B. Williams was aware that plaintiff had cirrhosis

of the liver and hepatitis C and failed to provide any treatment, which resulted in plaintiff

suffering “severe and unnecessary” pain. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-27. These allegations also state a

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 09/11/07 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

cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment.

In all other respects, plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted against defendants Brimhall and B. Williams. 

III. Request for Referral to Receiver 

With his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a document in

which he asks that the court order the federal Receiver currently overseeing medical care within

CDCR to review plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff provides no basis for the court making

such a referral, however the court is not aware of any reason plaintiff cannot correspond with the

Receiver directly regarding any concerns plaintiff has with respect to his medical care.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 4, 2007

request that the court order the federal Receiver to review his medical file is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The September 15, 2006 motion to dismiss filed by defendants Brimhall,

Smith and B. Williams be granted in part and denied in part as follows:

A. Granted with respect to plaintiff’s claims against defendant Smith, and 

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Smith be dismissed without prejudice;

B. Denied with respect to the Eighth Amendment claims identified above

against defendants Brimhall and B. Williams; and

C. Granted with respect to the remainder of plaintiff’s claims against

defendants Brimhall and B. Williams.

2. Defendants Brimhall and B. Williams be ordered to file their answer within

twenty days of any order adopting the above findings and recommendations.

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 ten 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 

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 09/11/07 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

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within five 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: September 11, 2007.

1

payn1585.57

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 09/11/07 Page 6 of 6