Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00993/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00993-3/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

3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

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

TUANJA EDWARD ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION;

(2) GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS;

(3) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES; AND

(4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO BE TRANSFERRED 

TO ANOTHER INSTITUTION

Plaintiff Tuanja Edward Anderson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Eighth Amendment. Defendants filed a motion to 

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 40 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 5
2

3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

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

dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 23) and for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff filed a motion requesting transfer to 

another institution. (ECF No. 34.) 

On June 20, 2016, the Honorable Barbara L. Major, United States Magistrate 

Judge, issued a thorough and thoughtful Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which 

she recommended (1) granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, 

(2) denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and (3) denying Plaintiff’s 

motion to be transferred to another institution. (ECF No. 37.) Defendants object to the 

R&R’s recommendation to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the 

ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 38.) 

Plaintiff replied to Defendants’ Objections. (ECF No. 39.)

Where a timely objection to a report and recommendation has been filed, the 

district court reviews de novo those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or 

recommendations to which an objection was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court 

has carefully reviewed the R&R, Defendants’ Objections, Plaintiff’s Reply, and the 

remainder of the record in this matter and ADOPTS the R&R in full.

I. LAW GOVERNING EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires a prisoner to exhaust 

“available administrative remedies” before bringing an action with respect to prison 

conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The proper procedural device to determine whether 

administrative remedies have been exhausted is a summary judgment motion. Williams 

v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 

1168 (9th Cir. 2014)). To prove a failure to exhaust, the defendant “must first prove that 

there was an available administrative remedy and that the prisoner did not exhaust that 

available remedy.” Id. “Then, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that 

there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally available 

administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him by ‘showing that the local 

remedies were ineffective, unobtainable, unduly prolonged, inadequate, or obviously 

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 40 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 5
3

3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

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

futile.’” Id. (internal citation omitted). The ultimate burden of proof, however, remains 

with the defendant. Id.

If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner shows a 

failure to exhaust, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. If material facts are disputed, summary 

judgment should be denied. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ objections and the record in this case, and 

overrules each objection.

Defendants first argue that Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and for deliberate 

indifference to medical needs have not been exhausted. Relatedly, they oppose the 

R&R’s conclusion that Defendants did not present any evidence establishing what, if any, 

administrative remedies and processes were available to Plaintiff at the various prisons 

and psychiatric facilities where he was housed or whether he was provided access to 

writing materials and the relevant prison forms at all times during his treatment in each of 

the facilities. 

The R&R found that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff 

had meaningful access to the administrative remedy process during the relevant times at 

the relevant facilities. Having considered the R&R, Defendants’ Objections, and the 

record, the Court agrees with the R&R. Defendants did not establish “the extent of the 

availability of the administrative process during [Plaintiff’s] placement in a mental health

crisis bed, suicide watch, and Plaintiff’s subsequent recovery.” Millner v. Biter, No. 13-

cv-2029, 2016 WL 110425, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016). Genuine disputed issues of 

material fact exist as to whether the administrative remedies were “effectively 

unavailable” to Plaintiff.

Defendants also object to the R&R’s analysis that there is a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether Plaintiff submitted a timely grievance about his deliberate 

indifference to safety claim, and whether prison officials prevented the grievance from 

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 40 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 5
4

3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

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

being processed. The Court again overrules Defendants’ objection. Plaintiff’s sworn 

statements in his declaration and Complaint are evidence that he attempted to file a 

timely grievance with C/O Crawford, and that prison officials made the administrative 

process unavailable to him. Defendants’ declarations constitute evidence that Plaintiff 

did not file a timely appeal. As the R&R noted, “[t]his is clearly a disputed material fact 

and it is not the Court’s province on a motion for summary judgment to make credibility 

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a disputed material fact.” 

(R&R at 38.)

III. CONCLUSION

The R&R correctly concludes that Defendants have not established that they are

entitled to summary judgment on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. Accordingly, Defendants’ objections are overruled and the R&R, including the 

portions to which no objections were made, is ADOPTED in its entirety. 

The Court orders as follows:

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART. Specifically, the Court 

(1) grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims against Associate Warden Hernandez but 

grants Plaintiff leave to amend; (2) grants the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim 

against Defendants Stout and Hernandez in their individual capacities and dismisses the 

individual capacity claims with prejudice; (3) grants the motion to dismiss the ADA 

claim but grants Plaintiff leave to amend to state a claim against the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; (4) grants the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

claim for deliberate indifference to safety against Defendants Heddy, Davis, and Bustos 

but grants Plaintiff leave to amend; and (5) grants the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim 

for deliberate indifference to his medical needs against Defendants Heddy, Davis, Bustos, 

and Miller but grants Plaintiff leave to amend.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 40 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 5
5

3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM

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

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s motion to be transferred to another institution is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 40 Filed 08/29/16 Page 5 of 5