Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01050/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01050-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN E. PORTER,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv01050 BTM (BLM)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND SETTING

EVIDENTIARY HEARING FOR

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

v.

GEORGE NEOTTI, et al.,

Defendants.

On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s “Motion for

Emergency Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporairly [sic] Restraining Order” (Dkt. No. 11). 

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as both an application for a temporary restraining order

and a motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order, DEFERS RULING on Plaintiff’s motion

for a preliminary injunction, and ORDERS the parties to appear for an evidentiary hearing on

the issue of whether Plaintiff sufficiently has exhausted his available administrative remedies.

Facts

On May 12, 2011, Plaintiff Ryan E. Porter, a state prisoner incarcerated at Richard J.

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 claiming that the conditions of his incarceration have violated and continue to violate

1 11cv01050 BTM (BLM)

Case 3:11-cv-01050-BTM-BLM Document 68 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 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

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Plaintiff alleges that in March 2010 he began to find “feces, dirt, razor blades, dead

mice, disinfectant, [and] bleach” in the food provided to Sensitive Needs Yard (“SNY” or

“protective custody”) inmates such as himself. Plaintiff further alleges that this contamination

is caused by “general population” inmates, who are responsible for preparing the food

provided to the SNY inmates and who have a motive and an opportunity to contaminate the

SNY inmates’ food. Plaintiff claims that he has suffered “severe [medical] complications” (id.

at 8) resulting from ingesting contaminated food beginning in June 2010, for which he has

received inadequate medical attention.1 Plaintiff alleges that RJD personnel have retaliated

against him on numerous occasions as a result of his efforts to file administrative appeals

relating to the conditions of his incarceration. The alleged retaliation includes denial of mail,

denial of medical care, denial of food, unwarranted cell searches and confiscation of

property, and on one occasion a severe beating by multiple prison guards. Plaintiff alleges

that the contamination of SNY food is ongoing, as are his medical problems. Lastly, Plaintiff

claims that RJD staff have deliberately obstructed the processing of his administrative

appeals.

On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed the present motion (Dkt. No. 11), in which he

makes two requests: First, Plaintiff requests an “order preventing the ‘general population’

inmates from making, preparing, handling, and delivering ‘protective custody’ inmates[’] food”

(Dkt. No. 11 at 5), and instead “allow[ing] ‘protective custody inmates to make and handle

and prepare ‘protective custody’ inmates[’] own food[] or order[ing] the ‘culinary free staff’ to

make, prepare, and handle ‘protective custody’ inmates[’] food at all times” (id. at 13). 

Second, Plaintiff requests an order preventing “the defendants from denying emergency

medical care, . . . retaliation by delaying legal mail, unwarranted cell searches and body

[searches], and illegal confiscation of personal property, where the only intent is to harass.” 

1

Specifically, Plaintiff claims that by the first week of November 2010 he began to

experience severe abdominal pain, severe dizzyness, severe bloating and fullness making

it painful to eat and drink water, green and chalky bowel movements, and painful indigestion. 

Plaintiff claims that he has collapsed multiple times since the fall of 2010 as a result of his

illness.

2 11cv01050 BTM (BLM)

Case 3:11-cv-01050-BTM-BLM Document 68 Filed 12/15/11 Page 2 of 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

(Id. at 2.) 

Defendants’ arguments in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion include their contentions that

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Dkt. No. 60 at 3-5) and that

Plaintiff has failed to allege he will suffer irreparable injury (id. at 8-9). 

Discussion

The same standards generally apply to temporary restraining orders and preliminary

injunctions. Credit Bureau Connection, Inc. v. Pardini, 726 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1114 (E.D. Cal.

2010). Thus, a plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order “must establish that he is likely

to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the

public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., “exhaustion

of available administrative remedies is required for any suit challenging prison conditions, not

just for suits under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (emphasis

added). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other

critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. at 90. Defendants contend that because Plaintiff has not

exhausted his available administrative remedies, he cannot proceed on any of his claims and

therefore cannot establish that “he is likely to succeed on the merits.” 

In the present case, Plaintiff is required to pursue his grievances through the system

established by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation before raising

those claims in Federal court. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084 et seq. In order to

exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed

through several levels of appeal: (1) informal review, (2) first formal written appeal on a CDC

602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4)

third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“Director”). See Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal.1997)

3 11cv01050 BTM (BLM)

Case 3:11-cv-01050-BTM-BLM Document 68 Filed 12/15/11 Page 3 of 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

(citing Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision from the Director’s level of review

satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38. Plaintiff

conceded at the November 22, 2011 hearing that he has not received a decision from the

Director’s level of review on any appeals addressing the issues contained in the present

motion. 

Plaintiff is not required to exhaust administrative remedies under this system if such

remedies are “effectively unavailable.” Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.

2010). “Failure to exhaust may be excused where [an] inmate takes ‘reasonable and

appropriate steps to exhaust [a] claim,’ but is precluded from doing so by the mistake or

misconduct of a prison official.” Jacobs v. Woodford, No. 1:08cv00369, 2011 WL 1584429,

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2011) (citing Nunez, 591 F.3d at 1224-25; Ngo v. Woodford, 539

F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008)). Specifically, In Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir.

2010), the Ninth Circuit held that “improper screening of an inmate’s administrative

grievances renders administrative remedies ‘effectively unavailable’ such that exhaustion is

not required under the PLRA.” Id. at 823. To show the appeal process is “unavailable,” the

inmate must establish (1) that he actually filed a grievance or grievances that, if pursued

through all levels of administrative appeals, would have sufficed to exhaust the claim that he

seeks to pursue in federal court, and (2) that prison officials screened his grievance or

grievances for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by applicable regulations. Id. at

823-24. 

At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has failed to introduce sufficient evidence to

establish that he is likely to succeed in proving that administrative remedies were “effectively

unavailable” to him. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s application for a temporary

restraining order. 

However, in determining whether Plaintiff has sufficiently exhausted his administrative

remedies, “the [C]ourt may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact” in

a procedure that is “closely analagous to summary judgment.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). As such, the Court hereby confirms the schedule set forth

4 11cv01050 BTM (BLM)

Case 3:11-cv-01050-BTM-BLM Document 68 Filed 12/15/11 Page 4 of 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

orally at the November 22, 2011 hearing and ORDERS that there shall be an evidentiary

hearing at 9:00 a.m. on December 28, 2011, on the issue of whether Plaintiff’s administrative

remedies were “effectively unavailable” to him. Additionally, the Court ORDERS that there

shall be a status conference at 11:00 a.m. on December 22, 2011. If the Court ultimately

determines that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on his argument that he is excused from

exhausting his administrative remedies, the Court will schedule a second evidentiary hearing

to address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim for preliminary injunctive relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2011 

HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

United States District Judge

5 11cv01050 BTM (BLM)

Case 3:11-cv-01050-BTM-BLM Document 68 Filed 12/15/11 Page 5 of 5