Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289-20/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Herrera
Plaintiff
Rouch
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO HERRERA ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROUCH, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 105), AND 

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 107)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 7 & 17.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Rouch on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical 

care claim. (ECF No. 18.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from chronic pain 

in his leg that worsens in cold weather, and that Defendant Rouch was deliberately 

indifferent to this serious medical need by refusing to provide thermal underwear. (ECF 

No. 17.)

On August 19, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the 

ground Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 81.) The motion 

advised Plaintiff of his obligation to file an opposition within twenty-one days. (Id.) On 

August 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of an expert to oppose 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion and a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 02/24/15 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

2

No. 84.) He did not timely file an opposition to Defendant’s motion or seek an extension 

of time to do so.

On December 11, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel and motion for appointment of an expert. (ECF No. 103.) The Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment within twenty-one days. 

(Id.) Plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, on January 15, 2015, the undersigned issued 

findings and a recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s action for failure to obey a court 

order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 104.)

On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the findings 

and recommendations. (ECF No. 105.) On February 3, 2015, the Court took Plaintiff’s 

motion under advisement and afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause why his 

time to oppose the summary judgment motion should be extended. Plaintiff filed his 

response on February 19, 2015. (ECF No. 109.)

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 4, 2015 motion for an extension of 

time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 107.) Plaintiff filed 

his objections along with the motion. (ECF No. 108.) 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and motion for extension of time are deemed 

submitted.

I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff’s motion seeks reconsideration on the following grounds: Plaintiff states 

that he attempted to submit a motion for extension of time on January 1, 2015 by 

delivering said motion to prison officials. He further states that he was unable to file his 

opposition following the Court’s December 11, 2014 order due to his recent and ongoing 

medical conditions (including Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, cocci, a lung infection, headaches, 

dizziness, and pain) and three hospitalizations. (ECF No. 105.)

In taking the matter under advisement, the Court noted that Defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment has been pending since August 19, 2014, without an opposition 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 02/24/15 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

3

or request for extension of time being filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 106.) The Court further 

noted that Plaintiff has suffered from serious medical conditions throughout the litigation, 

but nonetheless had filed more than twenty motions, and there was no reason to believe 

Plaintiff’s medical conditions would have kept him from filing a timely opposition or 

request for additional time. Finally, the Court noted that Defendant’s motion addresses 

only whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies in the twelve day interval 

between the incident at issue (February 15, 2013) and the initiation of this action

(February 27, 2013). In light of argument submitted on Defendants’ earlier motion to 

dismiss, it appeared Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies and that 

granting an extension of time would serve no useful purpose. Nevertheless, the Court 

afforded Plaintiff an additional fourteen days to show cause why his time to oppose the 

motion for summary judgment should be extended, supported at least by a summary of 

the evidence and arguments he would make if additional time to respond were granted.

In his response to the Court’s order, Plaintiff states that he exhausted his 

administrative remedies by filing several 602 administrative complaints regarding his 

chronic pain. Plaintiff states that he exhausted complaints regarding his chronic pain 

both before and after filing this suit. He wishes to conduct discovery to obtain his 

administrative appeal records from April 17, 2009 to February 15, 2012. Plaintiff argues 

that, pursuant to Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005), he is not required to 

exhaust administrative remedies for “each specific incident.” 

Plaintiff’s response does not provide cause for granting the motion for 

reconsideration. The instant action is limited to Defendant Rouch’s denial of Plaintiff’s 

request for thermal underwear on February 15, 2013. It does not involve Plaintiff’s more 

general complaints regarding the allegedly ineffective nature of the pain management he 

has received, and reportedly continues to receive, at California State Prison – Corcoran. 

“[A] grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress 

is sought.” Griffing v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Strong v. 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 02/24/15 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

4

David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002)). Under this standard, Plaintiff may not 

necessarily be required to file and exhaust a separate grievance each time he allegedly 

receives inadequate medical care for his ongoing chronic pain. See Gomez v. Winslow, 

177 F. Supp. 2d 977, 982 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Nevertheless, any grievances generally 

addressing Plaintiff’s pain management would not be sufficient to alert prison officials to 

Plaintiff’s complaint regarding the denial of thermal underwear, and thus would not 

exhaust the claim presented in this action. Accordingly, an extension of time to oppose 

the motion for summary judgment to provide evidence of prior grievances would serve 

no useful purpose and will be denied.

Similarly futile is Plaintiff’s claim that he exhausted administrative remedies after 

initiating this action. Dismissal is mandatory if Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies prior to bringing suit, even if exhaustion occurred while the litigation was 

pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

In sum, Plaintiff provides no basis for reconsidering the findings and 

recommendations, and his motion will be denied.

II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff states that he either forgot to timely mail his objections due to his medical 

condition or he did not complete his objections by the time prison staff passed by to pick 

up the mail on the date of the filing deadline. (ECF No. 107.) Plaintiff’s medical 

conditions provide good cause for a brief extension of time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

deadline for filing objections to the findings and recommendations will be extended nunc 

pro tunc to February 4, 2015. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 105) is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED; and

3. Plaintiff’s deadline for filing objections to the findings and recommendations 

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 02/24/15 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

5

is extended nunc pro tunc to and including February 4, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 5