637 Fed.Appx. 374 (9th Cir. 2016), 14-55062, Schwarz v. Meinberg
|Citation:||637 Fed.Appx. 374|
|Party Name:||BENJAMIN R. SCHWARZ; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ERWIN MEINBERG; et al., Defendants - Appellees|
|Attorney:||For BENJAMIN R. SCHWARZ, in his individual and class representative capacities, Plaintiff - Appellant: Joseph Reichmann, Esquire, Attorney, YAGMAN & REICHMANN, Venice Beach, CA; Rex Julian Beaber, Esquire, Attorney, Los Angeles, CA. STEPHEN YAGMAN, in his individual and class representative capac...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||February 19, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted: February 8, 2016, Pasadena, California
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00356-BRO-PLA. Beverly Reid O'Connell, District Judge, Presiding.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED.
For BENJAMIN R. SCHWARZ, in his individual and class representative capacities, Plaintiff - Appellant: Joseph Reichmann, Esquire, Attorney, YAGMAN & REICHMANN, Venice Beach, CA; Rex Julian Beaber, Esquire, Attorney, Los Angeles, CA.
STEPHEN YAGMAN, in his individual and class representative capacities, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Yagman & Reichmann.
For ERWIN MEINBERG, BRENDA BURCH, ROBERT E MCFADDEN, SUSAN G. MCCLINTOCK, KATHLEEN M. KENNEY, HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Jr., CHARLES E. SAMUELS, THOMAS R. KANE, WILLIAM F. DALIUS, Jr., JUAN D. CASTILLO, LINDA THOMAS, TAMMY JONES, Defendants - Appellees: Richard M. Park, Assistant U.S. Attorney Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA.
Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Schwarz and Stephen Yagman appeal the dismissal of their Bivens action alleging violations of their Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights while they were inmates at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California.
After the district court issued its order dismissing Schwarz's claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, an en banc decision of this Court held that disputed facts related to exhaustion are not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Schwarz has pleaded facts adequate to place in dispute whether exhaustion should be excused because the prison grievance process was functionally unavailable. See Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010). Albino therefore controls...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP