Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00654/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00654-0/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

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, et al., Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON

EXHAUSTION GROUNDS (doc. 52);

and

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON

EXHAUSTION GROUNDS (doc. 50). 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff James Michael Williams, an inmate currently incarcerated at RJ Donovan State Prison,

has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights from an alleged

denial of medical care while incarcerated in the San Diego County jail system. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint

contains claims against San Diego County Sheriff William D. Gore in his capacity as policy maker for

the San Diego County jails and the Medical Director of the County jail, later identified as Dr. Alfred

Joshua, M.D. (Doc. 1, at 2; see doc. 58.) 

1 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 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

Plaintiff’s first claim alleges that he was denied medical care for a knee injury sustained prior to

his March 9, 2011 incarceration at the George Bailey Detention Facility (GBDF). (Doc. 1, at 3.)

Plaintiff’s second claim alleges that GBDF medical personnel denied him surgical repair of a facial

injury sustained in an attack by another prisoner on April 3, 2011. (Doc. 1, at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that

jail personnel ignored two Court-ordered referrals for treatment and surgery for his alleged conditions.

(Id.) 

Plaintiff has checked a box on the form Complaint indicating that he exhausted all forms of

administrative relief for the alleged denial of medical care before filing suit but admits that he was not

able to officially exhaust the Sheriff’s administrative grievance procedure because “there exist no viable

exhaustion with the Medical Department when every verbal request for my leg surgery was ignored with

a reply ‘you’ must wait to be evaluated by our doctor.” (Doc. 1, at 6.) Plaintiff contends that it is

unnecessary to exhaust the Sheriff’s administrative grievance process because jail medical staff

“ignored’ March 3 and May 5, 2011 court orders that he be medically evaluated for his knee/leg injuries.

(Doc. 1, at 6.) With regard to his facial injuries, Plaintiff states that verbal requests for facial surgery

were also outright denied, and “written request/complaints ... were not responded to.” (Doc. 1, at 6.)

Plaintiff argued that his verbal requests, Scripps records, and the Superior Court’s notations in the

criminal record that suggested he be referred to a medical unit while incarcerated all provided Defendants with “sufficient notice.” (Doc. 1, at 6, 15-16.) 

II. 

EVIDENCE PRESENTED

Defendants’ Proffer

San Diego County jails have an administrative grievance procedure by which all prisoner

grievances are addressed. (Doc. 52-6; Lt. Jones Dec. ¶¶ 1-7; Exhibit 8.) Grievance forms are readily

available for all prisoners to complete and submit, with three successive levels of subsequent review

wherein jail facility personnel can resolve the grievance. (Doc. 52-6, at 2-3.) Each level of review

provides the prisoner with a written response and a resolution, or reasons for its denial. (Id.) 

Written grievances can be submitted in one of two ways. (Doc. 52-6, at 2.) They may be placed

in a locked grievance box located outside the housing module, in which case the second page of the

2 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

form would be signed and returned to the inmate “within a couple of days.” (Id.) Or a written grievance

can be handed to a deputy or staff member, who, in his or her discretion, will sign and return the second

page of the grievance form. (Id.) Inmates are told to keep a copy of this receipt for their records. (Id.)

The rules state that a written grievance will be answered within 10 days, and each time a grievance is

appealed to a higher level of command, there will be another 10-day response time. (Id.) The rules state

that there are three levels of review for grievances, and the inmate can submit the grievance for review

to the third and final level of grievance review, which is conducted by the Facility Commander. (Id.) 

Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff was aware of the Sheriff’s administrative grievance

procedure as he had used it to address his grievance of being denied access to the law library. (Lt. Jones

Dec. ¶¶ 10-18; Exhibit 9, grievance materials at COSD000375-400 and 1918-21.) Defendants provide

evidence that Plaintiff also filed grievances regarding the mail policy and the County’s response to

previous grievances. (Doc. 52-6, at 3-4; Lt. Jones Dec. at ¶ 15; Exhibit 10, Grievance Reports at

COSD001922-24.) In a declaration, Lt. Jones states that Plaintiff never submitted a grievance regarding

the alleged failure to provide medical care for either his leg or his face and never pursued exhaustion at

any level of review in the jail process. (Doc. 52-6, at 4; Lt. Jones Dec. ¶¶ 17-18.) Defendants affirm that

Plaintiff was a prisoner incarcerated within the County jail system between March 9, 2011 until he was

transferred to the custody of California Department of Corrections on April 11, 2013. (Doc. 52-6, at 3.) 

Plaintiff’s Proffer

In his response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff states that he is “very

familiar with” the administrative grievance process. (Doc. 64, at 21.) Plaintiff states that he submitted

grievances regarding the jail’s failure to provide medical care, specifically for both the leg/knee injury

and the facial injuries. (Doc. 64, at 21.) Plaintiff states that he could not secure a deputy or guard to sign

off on his grievances. (Doc. 64, at 27.) Plaintiff states that he filed a total of six grievances: three

regarding the leg/knee injury and three regarding the facial injuries. (Doc. 64, at 27.) Plaintiff states that

he deposited all grievances in the locked grievance box. (Doc. 64, at 30.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to respond to his written grievances. (Doc. 64, at 21.) Plaintiff states that he received no

copies of the grievances showing the grievances were received by the jail. (Doc. 64, at 31.) 

3 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

As evidence, Plaintiff submitted two declarations from two different inmates, Leonardo V. Pena,

and Patrick Stanley Pawlicki. (Doc. 64, at 58-61.) Inmate Pena declared that he “heard deputies/guards

tell inmates to put their grievances in the designated grievance box” but refused to sign-off on such

grievances personally. (Doc. 64, at 59.) He declared that “some guards would sign-off, where others

would not.” Doc. 64, at 59.) He declared that in the majority of cases guards told inmates to put their

grievances, especially the serious ones like staff abuse, in the box rather than sign off on them. (Doc. 64,

at 59.) He also declared that he heard that many inmates would complain over “non-responses to their

issue.” (Doc. 64, at 59.) Inmate Pawlicki likewise declared that “on many occasions I witnessed the

jailers tell inmates to put their grievances in the grievance box” and “not signing off on the grievance so

that the inmate would have a copy of it.” (Doc. 64, at 61.) He declared that inmates would “complain

when the jailers would not sign-off, because they wanted proof of their grievance being filed/sent.”

(Doc. 64, at 61.) 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires prisoners to exhaust all available

administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 action in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “The

PLRA attempts to eliminate unwarranted federal-court interference with the administration of prisons,

and thus seeks to afford [] officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before the

initiation of a federal case.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). Requiring exhaustion provides

jail officials a “fair opportunity to correct their own errors” and creates an administrative record for

grievances that eventually become the subject of federal court complaints. Id. at 94. “The obligation to

exhaust ‘available’ remedies persists as long as some remedy remains ‘available.’ Once that is no longer

the case, then there are no ‘remedies ... available,’ and the prisoner need not further pursue the grievance.” Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

739-41 (2001)). The mandatory language of the PLRA requiring exhaustion before bringing suit can

only be excused in three kinds of circumstances: 1) an administrative scheme is so opaque that it is

incapable of use; 2) the administrative procedure “operates as a simple dead end – with officers unable

or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates;” or 3) “a grievance procedure is

4 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

rendered unavailable when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of it through

machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1853-54 (2016). 

After the initial completion of discovery and before reaching the merits of the case, “[i]f the

evidence permits, the defendant may move for summary judgment under Rule 56” on exhaustion

grounds. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or

is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: [] citing to particular part of materials in the record,

including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). “An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal

knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is

competent to testify on the matters stated.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that “defendants have the

burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion” with such evidence. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315

F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (overruled on other grounds). Under Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th

Cir. 2014), a defendant using the failure to exhaust defense “must first prove there was an available

administrative remedy and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy.” Williams v. Paramo,

775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). “Then, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that there

is something particular in this 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 futile.’” Id. (citation omitted). After the burden shifts

to the plaintiff, he must show that he “is entitled to summary judgment that there were no available

administrative remedies at the jail within the meaning of the PLRA, and that he therefore satisfied §

1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). Although

declarations that are self-serving and uncorroborated can serve as evidence on summary judgment,

“[t]he district court can disregard a self-serving declaration that states only conclusions and not facts

that would be admissible in evidence.” Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497 (9th Cir.

2015). “A conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is

insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” F.T.C. v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d

1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997). If a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds is to

be denied, “disputed factual questions relevant to exhaustion should be decided by the judge, in the

5 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

same manner that a judge rather than a jury decides disputed factual questions relevant to jurisdiction

and venue” before reaching the merits of the case. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1147 (9th Cir. 2014). 

IV. DISCUSSION

In this case, although Plaintiff admitted that he technically failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies before filing suit, it is not clear from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint whether he failed to

pursue some “available” administrative relief before filing suit. See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. Plaintiff

has pled that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies because “there exist no viable exhaustion

with the Medical Department when every verbal request for my leg surgery was ignored with a reply

‘you’ must wait to be evaluated by our doctor.” (Doc. 1, at 6.) Plaintiff contends that it is unnecessary to

exhaust the Sheriff’s administrative grievance process because jail medical staff “ignored’ March 3 and

May 5, 2011 court orders that he be medically evaluated for his leg/knee. (Doc. 1, at 6.) With regard to

his claim for denial of care for his facial injuries, Plaintiff states that verbal requests for facial surgery

were outright denied, and “written request/complaints ... were not responded to.” (Doc. 1, at 6.) Plaintiff

pled that his verbal requests, Scripps records, and the Superior Court’s notations in the criminal record

that suggested he be referred to a medical unit while incarcerated all provided Defendants with 

“sufficient notice.” (Doc. 1, at 6, 15-16.) 

Defendants have provided evidence in the form of an declaration from a jail deputy showing that

Plaintiff was aware of the jail’s grievance procedure, had used it for other grievances and received

responses from the jail, and failed to use any stage of the grievance process regarding the two Eighth

Amendment claims in Plaintiff’s instant complaint. (Doc. 52-6; Lt. Jones Dec.) The declaration shows

that inmates could either hand their grievance forms to a deputy or place them in a locked grievance

box. (Id.) The declaration explains that if an inmate places a grievance in the box, he should expect to

receive a receipt within a couple of days and a formal response within 10 days. (Id.) The declaration also

states that there are three levels of review for inmate grievances, with the final review conducted by the

Facility Commander. (Id.) The sworn declaration shows that the jail allowed a prisoner to file a

grievance for any reason. (Id.) 

With this declaration, Defendants have met their burden of raising and proving the absence of

exhaustion in Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff now has the burden of showing that he “is entitled to summary

6 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

judgment that there were no available administrative remedies at the jail within the meaning of the

PLRA, and that he therefore satisfied § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d

1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff must provide evidence showing either 1) the administrative scheme

is so opaque that it is incapable of use; 2) the administrative procedure “operates as a simple dead end –

with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates;” or 3) that he

was thwarted from taking advantage of the administrative process “through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1853-54 (2016). In response to Defendants’

motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff states that he is “very familiar with” the administrative

grievance process and that he submitted grievances regarding the jail’s failure to provide medical care,

specifically for both the leg/knee injury and the facial injuries. (Doc. 64, at 21.) Plaintiff states that he

could not secure a deputy or guard to sign off on his grievances. (Doc. 64, at 27.) Plaintiff states that he

filed a total of six grievances: three regarding the leg/knee injury and three regarding the facial injuries.

(Doc. 64, at 27.) Plaintiff states that he deposited all grievances in the locked grievance box. (Doc. 64, at

30.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to respond to his written grievances. (Doc. 64, at 21.)

Plaintiff states that he received no copies of the grievances showing that the grievances were received by

the jail. (Doc. 64, at 31.)

Plaintiff does not include these details in a signed declaration; rather, he makes these arguments

in his opposition papers. Curiously, the pleadings do not include these added details but rather explain

that there was “no viable exhaustion” remedy for his requests and that Defendants should have already

been on notice of the facts in his complaints through previous court orders, medical records, and his

verbal requests. Although his opposition papers contains arguments that his administrative remedies

were effectively unavailable to him because jail medical personnel chose to ignore and failed to respond

to his numerous grievances, Plaintiff provides no information as to when he attempted to give any

deputies completed copies of the grievance forms or when he placed them in the grievance box. Plaintiff

fails to provide copies of any of his grievances that were placed in the locked grievance box. Plaintiff

fails to show how he made a good faith effort to get a response from the jail on any of his grievances.

This court would be remiss to take Plaintiff’s word in his opposition papers that jail officials ignored

Plaintiff’s submitted grievances when Plaintiff provides no tangible evidence admissible to a court that

7 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

these grievance forms were actually filled out in the first place and Plaintiff’s original pleadings suggest

that Plaintiff did not pursue his administrative remedies because he did not consider the remedy

“viable.” 

What’s more, the two affidavits that Plaintiff did submit in support of his argument that a

administrative remedy was not available to him are from two inmates, Leonardo V. Pena and Patrick

Stanley Pawlicki, who both make claims that administrative remedies were unavailable on the basis of

hearsay. Inmate Pena merely “heard deputies/guards tell inmates to put their grievances in the designated grievance box” but refused to sign-off on such grievances personally and merely heard that many

inmates would complain over “non-responses to their issue.” (Doc. 64, at 59.) Inmate Pawlicki likewise

merely heard “jailers tell inmates to put their grievances in the grievance box” and heard inmates

“complain when the jailers would not sign-off, because they wanted proof of their grievance being

filed/sent.” (Doc. 64, at 61.) Because this evidence contains hearsay, it cannot be used to show that

Plaintiff “is entitled to summary judgment that there were no available administrative remedies at the

jail within the meaning of the PLRA, and that he therefore satisfied § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). The bottom line is that Plaintiff has not

provided admissible evidence that jail employees were consistently unwilling to provide any relief to

aggrieved inmates or that he has been personally thwarted from pursuing his administrative remedies.

As Defendants have met their burden showing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies, and Plaintiff has not met his burden showing that there were no administrative remedies

available, summary judgment should be granted for Defendants on the exhaustion issue (doc. 52), and

Plaintiff should not be entitled to summary judgment (doc. 50). 

V. CONCLUSION

This Report and Recommendation by the undersigned magistrate judge is submitted to United

States District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1

of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

For the foregoing reasons, the court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED. Any written

objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Court and a copy served on all

8 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

parties on or before February 3, 2017. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and

Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed on or before February 13,

2017. The parties are advised that failure to file either of these documents within the specified time

periods may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of this Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 20, 2017

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

9 15cv654 AJB (PCL)

Case 3:15-cv-00654-AJB-PCL Document 74 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9