Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06016/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06016-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RASHEED HILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SCANLON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-06016-JD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Plaintiff Rasheed Hilson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, proceeds with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment citing 

administrative exhaustion. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or otherwise communicated with 

the Court. The motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

This action alleges that defendants, doctors and dentists at North Kern State Prison 

(“NKSP”) and Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) failed to properly treat plaintiff’s dental 

problems. During an assault in county jail, plaintiff suffered two broken bones in his mandible 

area and had surgery that involved open and closed reductions of the fractures to promote the 

healing of his jaw. The assault, surgery, and post-operative care are the subject of a separate 

lawsuit and are not at issue in this action. Complaint at 1.1 Plaintiff alleges that at NKSP, 

defendants denied him surgery that was recommended by an outside hospital and failed to 

properly treat his pain. Plaintiff was later transferred to SVSP where surgery was again 

 

1

Plaintiff is proceeding with those claims in Hilson v. USC Medical Center, 09-cv-9402-MWFJEM, in the Central District of California.

Case 3:12-cv-06016-JD Document 74 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 8
2

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

Northern District of California

recommended by an oral surgeon. But an outside surgeon who also saw plaintiff advised against 

the surgery. Plaintiff alleges that the doctors and dentists at SVSP and the outside surgeon failed 

to provide surgery. 

The defendants at NKSP were previously dismissed from this action. Docket No. 48. The 

Court noted that many defendants had not been served including several at SVSP. Id. When 

plaintiff was unable to provide additional information for service, the Court obtained service 

information for four defendants at SVSP: Scanlon, Norton, Wittenberg, and Johnson. The 

remaining defendants were dismissed. Defendants Scanlon, Norton, and Wittenberg were served 

and filed this motion for summary judgment. The United States Marshal was unable to effectuate 

service on Johnson.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there 

is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is 

genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving 

party. Id.

The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those 

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a genuine 

issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Nissan Fire & Marine 

Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). When the moving party has met this 

burden of production, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by its own 

affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the 

nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact, the 

moving party wins. Id.

An unenumerated 12(b) motion is no longer the proper procedural device to challenge a 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014), 

overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). The Albino court determined a 

failure to exhaust must be challenged by a motion for summary judgment. Id. However, the court 

noted the shift to be “more a matter of . . . nomenclature than of practical operation.” Albino, 747 

F.3d at 1166.

B. Administrative Exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to 

provide 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. 

Case 3:12-cv-06016-JD Document 74 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 8
3

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

Northern District of California

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). “Prisoners must 

now exhaust all ‘available’ remedies, not just those that meet federal standards.” Id. at 85. Even 

when the relief sought cannot be granted by the administrative process, i.e., monetary damages, a 

prisoner must still exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 85-86 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 734). 

The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of available 

administrative remedies. Id. at 93. This requirement cannot be satisfied “by filing an untimely or 

otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Id. at 83-84. “The text of 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) strongly suggests that the PLRA uses the term ‘exhausted’ to mean what the 

term means in administrative law, where exhaustion means proper exhaustion.” Id. at 93. 

Therefore, the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion. Id. “Proper 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.” Id. at 90-91. A prisoner must complete the administrative review 

process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition 

to bringing suit in federal court. See id. at 87; see also Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152, 1159 

(11th Cir. 2005) (holding that, to exhaust remedies, a prisoner must file appeals in the place, and at 

the time, the prison's administrative rules require).

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) provides that 

inmates and parolees “may appeal any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the 

department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse 

effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). “Three 

levels of formal review are provided, and a prisoner exhausts the grievance process when he 

completes the third level.” Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010).

III. FACTS

The following facts are undisputed:

Between October 2008 and the present, Hilson filed approximately seventy health-care 

related grievances. Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) at 10. Hilson was incarcerated at 

SVSP from July 11, 2011, to February 22, 2012, and from September 6, 2012, to June 25, 2013. 

Case 3:12-cv-06016-JD Document 74 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 8
4

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

Northern District of California

MSJ at 3. Hilson filed this action on November 15, 2012.2 Complaint at 27. From September 

2011 to November 2012, Hilson initiated nine health-care related grievances. MSJ at 5. Only four 

of the grievances concerned oral reconstructive surgery and his dental needs. Id. at 5-7.

Inmate appeal number SVSP-HC-11045912 was filed on December 7, 2011, and requested 

reconstructive jaw surgery. This appeal was rejected at the first level of review on December 7, 

2011, for exceeding the allowable number of appeals and for not being on approved forms. Hilson 

was informed that he could resubmit the appeal after 14 days and he was provided the correct 

form. Id. at 5. He was also informed that he could challenge the denial at the screening stage. Id. 

at 5-6. Hilson did not resubmit the appeal or challenge the screening decision. Id. at 6.

More than eight months later, on September 28, 2012, Hilson filed appeal number SVSPHC-12047582 requesting a dental prosthesis and oral reconstructive surgery. Id. at 6. On October 

23, 2012, the appeal was partially granted in that Hilson’s request for a dental prosthesis was 

granted, but his request for oral reconstructive surgery was denied. Id. He did not appeal the 

denial of surgery to the second or third level. Id.

On October 2, 2012, Hilson filed appeal number SVSP-HC-12047701 requesting oral 

reconstructive surgery. Id. This appeal was cancelled at the first level of review because it was 

duplicative of the September appeal (number SVSP-HC-12047582), which was still being 

processed at that time. Id. He was informed that he could pursue the appeal further if the 

cancellation was inaccurate. He did not pursue the appeal or resubmit it. Id.

On November 5, 2012, Hilson initiated another appeal, number SVSP-HC-12047866, 

requesting oral reconstructive surgery. Id. at 7. The appeal was cancelled on November 18, 2012, 

because it was also duplicative of appeal number SVSP-HC-12047582, which had been partially 

granted and denied at the first level on October 23, 2012. Id. He was informed that he could 

appeal further if the cancellation was inaccurate, but he did not resubmit or further pursue the 

 

2 Only grievances and exhaustion attempts submitted prior to when Hilson filed the federal

complaint will be considered. See Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A 

prisoner] may initiate litigation in federal court only after the administrative process ends and 

leaves his grievances unredressed. It would be inconsistent with the objectives of the statute to let 

him submit his complaint any earlier than that.”)

Case 3:12-cv-06016-JD Document 74 Filed 11/17/15 Page 4 of 8
5

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

Northern District of California

appeal. Id.

IV. ANALYSIS

Defendants argue and have provided many exhibits in support to demonstrate that Hilson 

never fully exhausted any grievance seeking oral reconstructive surgery. Plaintiff has not filed an 

opposition to challenge these arguments and after reviewing defendants’ exhibits and plaintiff’s 

complaint, the evidence is undisputed.

It is undisputed that Hilson never proceeded past the first level of the appeal system with 

his grievances regarding oral reconstructive surgery. To fully exhaust the grievance at the prison, 

Hilson was required to appeal the grievance through the third level. Harvey, 605 F.3d at 683. 

Hilson’s many duplicative appeals filed at the first level seeking surgery are insufficient to exhaust 

the claim. When Hilson did file procedurally defective grievances he was informed by prison 

officials how to remedy the situation, but he never complied. Procedurally defective grievances 

are insufficient to establish exhaustion. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 84. “Proper 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.” Id. at 90-91.

Hilson’s health-care related appeal history reflects that he was familiar with the grievance 

system and had appealed past the first level on other occasions. MSJ, Villafuerte Decl. Ex. A at 1, 

4-8, 16-17, 21, 29. While it appears that Hilson erroneously filed the same grievance requesting 

oral reconstructive surgery at the first level on multiple occasions, he was aware of the second and 

third levels of review that were necessary to properly exhaust the grievance. Thus, administrative 

remedies were available to him.

Even appeal number SVSP-HC-12047582, which was partially granted at the first level, 

fails to exhaust the claim in this case. The appeal was granted regarding the requested dental 

prosthesis, however the first level response from the prison was clear that the request for surgery 

was denied. MSJ, Villafuerte Decl. Ex. E at 2. Hilson still needed to further appeal the denial of 

surgery to exhaust this claim. For all these reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

Defendant Johnson

Case 3:12-cv-06016-JD Document 74 Filed 11/17/15 Page 5 of 8
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Despite the Court discovering an address for service and providing Hilson additional 

opportunities to enable service of defendant Johnson, service was returned unexecuted. Docket 

No. 60.

Yet, summary judgment may be granted by the court sua sponte in favor of a nonappearing 

party on the basis of facts presented by other defendants who have appeared. See Columbia Steel 

Fabricators v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of 

summary judgment in favor of nonappearing defendant where plaintiff, in response to summary 

judgment motion filed by defendant who had appeared, had “full and fair opportunity to brief and 

present evidence” on dispositive issue as to claim against nonappearing defendant); see also 

Abagninin v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding district court 

properly granted motion for judgment on the pleadings as to unserved defendants where such 

defendants were in a position similar to served defendants against whom claim for relief could not 

be stated); Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding district 

court on its own motion may grant motion to dismiss as to defendants who have not moved to 

dismiss where such defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants).

Plaintiff states that at the relevant time defendant Johnson was a doctor of dental services 

at SVSP. For the same reasons as discussed above, the claim against Johnson regarding the denial 

of oral reconstructive surgery is unexhausted and summary judgment is granted. In addition, 

Johnson is also dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

V. CONCLUSION

1. The motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 64) is GRANTED.

2. Unserved defendant Johnson is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above.

3. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-06016-JD Document 74 Filed 11/17/15 Page 6 of 8
7

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

Northern District of California

Case 3:12-cv-06016-JD Document 74 Filed 11/17/15 Page 7 of 8
8

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RASHEED HILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SCANLON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-06016-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 17, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Rasheed Hilson ID: G-37110

Corcoran California State Prison 3A-04-142 Low

P.O. Box 3461

Corcoran, CA 93212 

Dated: November 17, 2015

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:12-cv-06016-JD Document 74 Filed 11/17/15 Page 8 of 8