Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01951/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01951-9/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

OAKLAND DIVISION

NATHAN WENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

DEVEAR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No: C 13-1951 SBA (PR)

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AS TO SERVED 

DEFENDANTS GAMBOA AND KROSSA; 

DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST

UNSERVED DEFENDANT CASUSFLA; 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO PROVIDE INFORMATION 

TO LOCATE UNSERVED DEFENDANT 

DEVEAR; AND DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Plaintiff Nathan Wenberg, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley 

State Prison (“SVSP”), brings the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

operative complaint is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges multiple 

constitutional violations, including a claim that served Defendants SVSP Physician L. 

Gamboa and Registered Nurse J. Krossa (collectively “Defendants”) were deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendants’ unopposed motion for 

summary judgment. In their motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a), prior to filing his FAC. Defendants also move to dismiss the deliberate 

indifference claim against them on the basis that it fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted, and alternatively, for summary judgment on the ground of qualified 

immunity. 

Having read and considered the papers submitted, and being fully informed, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 10
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

I. BACKGROUND

The FAC alleges that on July 31, 2011, Defendants SVSP Correctional Officers 

Devear and Doe # 1 were working as Floor Officers, while Defendant Correctional Officer 

Doe #2 was working the Control Booth/Tower post and was responsible for constant visual 

monitoring of all activity occurring in that area of the prison.

1 According to Plaintiff,

Defendant Devear along with Defendant Doe #1, without provocation, sprayed him twice 

with pepper spray through the food port of his cell. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Devear 

and Doe #1 then left Plaintiff in his cell without assessing his condition and without 

providing him with decontamination or medical attention for fifteen hours. Because of the 

puddles of pepper spray on his cell floor, Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell, striking his left 

leg and hip on the steel edge of the lower bunk, thereby injuring his leg and hip. Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendants Devear, Doe #1, and Doe #2 ignored his pleas for help.

As a result of his fall, Plaintiff has allegedly endured constant moderate to severe pain 

in his left side, hip and leg, and has experienced a notably diminished function, range of 

motion and lack of strength in his left leg. Plaintiff claims that he now has a pronounced 

limp as a result of the incident, and was denied medical care immediately after and 

subsequent to the incident. In particular, Plaintiff made requests for an examination by an 

orthopedic surgeon and radiological studies (beyond the standard x-rays) to determine the 

nature of the injury to his left side and leg. According to Plaintiff, his requests were denied, 

and he received only an x-ray, which he asserts is ineffective in diagnosing his condition.

On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his original complaint, Dkt. 1, which the Court 

screened and dismissed with leave to amend, Dkt. 7. On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his 

FAC. Dkt. 10. Upon screening the FAC, the Court found the following Eighth Amendment 

claims cognizable: (1) an excessive force claim against Defendant Devear; (2) a deliberate 

indifference to medical needs claim against Defendants Devear, Doe #1, and Doe # 2 for 

failing to decontaminate Plaintiff; and (3) a deliberate indifference to medical needs claim 

 

1

Plaintiff’s pleadings indicate that the date of the incident at issue was August 31, 

2011; however, the record shows that the incident took place on July 31, 2011. Dkt. 42, Ex. 

C.

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 10
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

against Defendants Gamboa, Krossa, and Casusfla for denying him an appropriate medical 

evaluation of his alleged slip-and-fall injuries. 

The Court ordered service as to Defendants Devear, Gamboa, Krossa, and Casusfla. 

Defendants Gamboa and Krossa are the only served Defendants; therefore, the remaining 

unserved Defendants have not joined in the instant motion for summary judgment.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a party may move for summary 

judgment on some or all of the claims or defenses presented in an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(a)(1). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Id.; see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving 

party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (requiring 

citation to “particular parts of materials in the record”). If the moving party meets this initial 

burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to present specific facts showing that 

there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. 

v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). 

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that must be 

raised in a motion for summary judgment. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (en banc). The defendants have the initial burden to prove “that there was an 

available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available 

remedy.” Id. at 1172. If the defendants carry that burden, “the burden shifts to the prisoner 

to come forward with evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that 

made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to 

him.” Id. The ultimate burden of proof remains with defendants, however. Id. “If material 

facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied, and the district judge rather than a 

jury should determine the facts.” Id. at 1166. 

As noted, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. However, since 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 10
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

the FAC is verified, the Court will construe it as an opposing affidavit under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56, insofar as it is based on personal knowledge and sets forth specific facts 

admissible in evidence. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 & nn.10-11 (9th Cir.

1995). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

1. Overview

The 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 of all 

“available” remedies is mandatory; those remedies need not meet federal standards, nor must 

they be “plain, speedy, and effective.” Id. at 524; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739-40 

(2001). Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably 

money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741. A prisoner 

“seeking only money damages must complete a prison administrative process that could 

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated, but no money.” Id. at 739. 

The PLRA requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 

548 U.S. 81, 83 (2006). “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. Thus, compliance with prison grievance procedures is required by the PLRA to 

properly exhaust. Id. The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement cannot be satisfied “by filing an 

untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Id. at 84. 

The State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal 

administratively “any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those 

individuals as adversely affecting their welfare.” See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). It 

also provides its inmates the right to file administrative appeals alleging misconduct by 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 10
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

correctional officers. See id. § 3084.1(e). Custody grievances respond “to issues with 

custody staff, including but not limited to inmate allegations of excessive force, harassment, 

or retaliation by correctional officers.” Mojica Decl. ¶ 3. Health care grievances are 

handled separately from grievances concerning the actions of custody staff. Id. Health care 

grievances address inmate complaints regarding a California Correctional Health Care 

Services’ (“CCHCS”) “decision, action, condition, omission, policy or regulation that has a 

material adverse effect upon [their] welfare.” Robinson Decl. ¶ 4. 

In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner 

must proceed through three levels of appeal. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5; Barry v. 

Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). If an inmate pursues his claims through 

the third-level review, the inmate has satisfied the administrative remedies exhaustion 

requirement under § 1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38. 

Since 2008, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) 

has handled health care medical grievances separately from custody grievances. Robinson 

Decl. ¶ 3, note 1. The prison staff located at the respective institutions conducts the firstlevel and second-level review of health care grievances, and the Inmate Correspondence and 

Appeals Branch (“ICAB”) at the CCHCS headquarters handles the third-level review. Id.

¶ 2. Meanwhile, an inmate submitting a custody grievance must pursue the following levels 

of appeal: (1) formal written appeal on a CDCR 602 inmate appeal form (“602 appeal”), 

(2) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (3) third level appeal to the 

Director of the CDCR (i.e., Director’s Level). See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.7.

2

An action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted his available 

administrative remedies before he or she filed suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts while 

the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 

 

2 Under the regulations, as amended effective January 28, 2011, the informal 

grievance level has been omitted and there are now only three levels: first level appeal, 

second level appeal, and third level appeal. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.7. As 

further explained below, Plaintiff’s grievances were submitted after January 28, 2011; 

therefore, the amended regulations were in effect and governs his grievances.

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 5 of 10
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

where an amended complaint has been filed, a prisoner satisfies the exhaustion requirement 

as long as he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to its filing. See Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2010) (amended complaint raised new claims 

which arose after the original complaint was filed).

Here, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 

prior to filing his FAC, which alleged that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical 

needs. Thus, they argue that the deliberate indifference claim against them should be 

dismissed, and that summary judgment should be granted on this claim based on a failure to 

properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing the FAC.

2. Summary of Plaintiff’s Grievances

In his FAC, Plaintiff makes reference to filing only one relevant grievance—SVSP-L11-01739, which he claims he pursued to the third-level review. Dkt. 10 at 3. However, the 

record shows that Plaintiff, in fact, submitted three grievances that were accepted for review

between July 31, 2011 (the date of the alleged pepper spray incident), and July 29, 2013 (the 

date Plaintiff filed his FAC). Mojica Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. C; Robinson Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A. Those 

grievances are summarized below.

1) SVSP-L-11-01739: On August 1, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a custody 

grievance against Defendant Devear regarding claims of excessive force and deliberate 

indifference for failure to decontaminate stemming from the July 31, 2011 pepper spray 

incident. Mojica Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. C. It was bypassed at the first-level review. Id. at 1. On 

February 29, 2012, after numerous delays due to the “[c]omplexity of the decision, action or 

policy,” the grievance was partially granted at the second-level review because it was being 

referred to the Office of Internal Affairs (“OIA”) for investigation. Id. at 14. On the second 

level review form, a box is checked indicating that the inquiry was not yet complete and that 

Plaintiff would be informed, upon completion, whether his allegations were sustained, not 

sustained, unfounded, exonerated or that no finding was possible. Id. On August 10, 2012, 

the OIA determined that Plaintiff’s allegations were “sustained,” that CDCR policy was 

violated, and that appropriate action would be taken. Id. at 15-16. Plaintiff submitted the 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 6 of 10
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

grievance to the third-level review on September 12, 2012, and it was assigned log number 

1203485. Zamora Decl., Ex. A. On September 28, 2012, it was screened out because the 

supporting documents were not attached. Id. Plaintiff resubmitted it on November 6, 2012, 

and it was again screened out on November 13, 2012 with the notation, “Correspondence 

letter to inmate.” Id. There is nothing in the record indicating what that letter said. Plaintiff 

did not resubmit the grievance after it was screened out a second time. Id.

2) SVSP HC 11045939: On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a health care 

grievance requesting blood tests for Hepatitis, which was neither related to any injuries 

resulting from the July 31, 2011 pepper spray incident nor his subsequent slip-and-fall 

injuries. Robinson Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B. On May 14, 2012, his request was granted at the 

second-level review. Robinson Decl., Ex. A at 1.

3) SVSP HC 13048704: On March 15, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a health care 

grievance relating to a slip and fall he experienced in his cell on July 31, 2011. Robinson 

Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. C. Plaintiff requested an examination and evaluation by an orthopedic 

surgeon, an MRI/CT scan, “effective” pain management, and physical therapy. Id. This 

grievance was partially granted at the first and second levels of review. Id. On December 

20, 2013, the grievance was denied at the third-level review because CCHCS Chief L. D. 

Zamora determined that “no intervention at the Director’s Level of Review [was] necessary 

as [Plaintiff’s] medical condition [had] been evaluated and [he was] receiving treatment 

deemed medically necessary.” Id. at 1-2.

3. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Gamboa, Krossa, and Casusfla failed to provide him 

with an appropriate medical evaluation and subsequent treatment for his July 31, 2011 slipand-fall injuries. Of the three grievances submitted by Plaintiff during the relevant time 

period, only one, grievance SVSP HC 13048704, pertains to this claim. Robinson Decl. ¶ 8, 

Ex. C. That grievance was denied on December 20, 2013—five months after Plaintiff filed 

his July 29, 2013 FAC. Because Plaintiff exhausted this deliberate indifference claim after

the FAC was filed, it is unexhausted for purposes of the PLRA. See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 7 of 10
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

1199; Rhodes, 621 F.3d at 1006. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants Gamboa and 

Krossa’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against 

them, which is dismissed without prejudice.3 See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1200-01 (proper 

course in claims dismissed due to failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies is 

dismissal without prejudice to refiling).

Although Defendant Casusfla has not been served and has not joined in the motion, 

the deliberate indifferent claim against him is subject to dismissal for the same reasons set 

forth above; to wit, Plaintiff has failed to controvert Defendants’ showing that he had not yet 

exhausted his deliberate indifference claim prior to filing his original or amended 

complaints. See Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 803 

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of nonappearing defendant,

where the 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). 

B. DOE DEFENDANTS

In its September 5, 2013 Order of Service, the Court found the FAC alleges a 

cognizable deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Doe #1 and Doe #2. Dkt. 11 at 

3. The use of Doe defendants is not favored in the Ninth Circuit. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 

629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Where the identity of alleged defendants cannot be 

known prior to the filing of a complaint the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through 

discovery to identify them. Id. Failure to afford the plaintiff such an opportunity is error. 

See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the claims 

against Defendants Doe #1 and Doe #2 are DISMISSED from the action without prejudice. 

In the event Plaintiff is able to learn these Defendants’ identities through discovery, he may 

move to file a second amended complaint to add them as named defendants. See Brass v. 

County of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir. 2003).

 

3

The Court need not address Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim or the issues of qualified immunity.

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 8 of 10
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

C. DEFENDANT DEVEAR

In view of the above, the only claims remaining in this action are the excessive force 

and deliberate indifference claims against Defendant Devear, who has not yet been served. 

After the Marshal’s initial attempt to serve Defendants, the prison claimed to have no record 

of Defendant Casufla and that there was “insufficient info to identify [Defendant Devear] 

(request first name or initial).” Dkts. 28, 30. The Court directed Plaintiff to provide the 

necessary information to locate both of these Defendants. Plaintiff provided additional 

information regarding Defendant Casufla, but not Defendant Devear. Dkts. 44, 47. 

On August 12, 2014, the Court ordered the Clerk to re-serve Defendant Casufla. Dkt. 

47. The Clerk did so, but also inadvertently re-served Defendant Devear. Dkt. 51. In

response, the SVSP litigation coordinator sent letters to the Court stating that Defendant 

Devear “never worked at SVSP.” Dkt. 53, 54. The letters, however, confusingly refer to 

this Defendant as “Deaver,” not “Devear.” Dkts. 53, 54. On January 22, 2015, Clerk’s 

Office personnel attempted to contact the litigation coordinator’s office at SVSP in order to 

inquire whether these letters were sent in error.4 Clerk’s Office personnel also provided the 

date of the pepper spray incident—July 31, 2011—to assist the litigation coordinator in 

determining which Officer Devear should be served. To date, the litigation officer has not 

responded to the aforementioned inquiry. 

At this juncture, the Court finds that copies of the 602 inmate appeals relating to the 

July 31, 2011 incident may assist the SVSP litigation coordinator in locating this Defendant. 

Therefore, the Clerk is directed below to make a third—and final—attempt to re-serve 

Defendant Devear. 

In addition, the Court sua sponte GRANTS Plaintiff a final extension of time to 

provide a first name or initial in order to locate this Defendant, as directed below.

 

4

It is possible that the litigation coordinator made a spelling error and intended to 

state that Officer Devear never worked at SVSP. However, such a statement is directly 

contradicted by the record, which shows that the Marshal had originally indicated that 

service on an Officer Devear had previously been attempted, and the only reason service 

was ineffective was because a first name or initial was needed. Dkt. 28. 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 9 of 10
10

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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants Gamboa and Krossa’s motion for summary judgment is 

GRANTED as to the deliberate indifference claim against them. Dkt. 38. The 

aforementioned claim is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in a new civil rights 

action. See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1200-01. Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim 

against unserved Defendant Casusfla also is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Doe #1 and Doe #2 are DISMISSED 

from this action without prejudice. 

3. The Clerk is directed to re-serve Defendant Devear with a Notice of Lawsuit 

and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of 

Summons, a copy of the FAC (Dkt. 10), and copies of the 602 appeal as well as the second 

and third level decisions relating to the July 31, 2011 pepper spray incident (Dkt. 42, Ex. C 

at 1-4, 14-16), with a notation to have the litigation coordinator pay special attention to the

date of the incident and the correct spelling of Defendant Devear’s name.

5. The time in which Plaintiff may provide the Court with the required 

information necessary to locate Defendant Devear will be extended up to and including 

twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order. Failure to do so by the new deadline 

shall result in the dismissal of all claims against this Defendant, unless the Clerk’s third 

attempt to serve Defendant Devear is successful. If service of Defendant Devear fails a 

third time, the Court will dismiss this Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(m) and close this 

case.

6. This Order terminates Docket No. 38.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/6/15 ______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.13\Wenberg1951.grantMSJ(exh)&re-serveDevear-rev021615.docx

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 55 Filed 02/06/15 Page 10 of 10