Sims v. Walker
| Decision Date | 04 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 17-cv-00722-CAB-JLB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | DARIUS SIMS, Plaintiff, v. DR. R. WALKER, et al., Defendants. |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff Darius Sims brings this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the medical care he received while incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJDCF"). (ECF No. 1 at 3-6.)1 In his complaint, Plaintiff names as defendants Drs. Walker, Chau, Clayton, Barenchi, and Correctional Officer Strayhorn. (Id.) Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit and that the complaint fails to state a claim against any Defendant. (ECF No. 15-1.) Plaintiff opposes Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 20.)
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72.3 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. After a thorough review of Plaintiff's complaint, the parties' motion and opposition papers, and all supporting documents, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15).
Plaintiff Darius Sims, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a complaint in this Court on April 10, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On June 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed exhibits in support of his complaint. (ECF No. 5.) On June 29, 2017, the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo found Plaintiff's complaint sufficient to survive the low threshold for proceeding past the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (ECF No. 6.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' provision of medical care violated the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)2 Specifically, he asserts Defendants acted with deliberate indifference when they (1) failed to adequately treat his chronic pain; (2) prescribed a medication that previously caused Plaintiff's kidneys to fail; (3) refused to designate Plaintiff as a full-time wheelchair user; (4) interfered with Plaintiff's transfer to another facility; (5) harassed Plaintiff during and after his medical appointments; and (6) denied his healthcare appeals. (Id.)
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his complaint:3 Plaintiff suffers from chronic and severe pain as a result of his many aliments, which include gout, migraines, severe back pain, kidney disease, cardiac issues, vision impairment, hypertension, and nerve damage. (Id. at 3-5.) Some of these ailments require Plaintiff to use a wheelchair for mobility. (Id.) Plaintiff's primary care physicians, Defendants Walker and Chau, did not adequately treat his pain when they failed to prescribe the medication Plaintiff requested, did not refer him to the pain management committee, and failed to treat his migraines. (Id.) In addition, Defendant Chau prescribed Plaintiff the medication allopurinol, which previously caused Plaintiff's kidneys to fail, as evidenced by his medical records. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff further alleges that he was transferred to RJDCF in retaliation for a prior lawsuit he filed against officials at another facility. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Plaintiff was previously housed at Mule Creek State Prison ("Mule Creek"), but was transferred to California Health Care Facility, Stockton ("CHCF") after receiving two heart stints in December 2015. (Id.) At that time, he was litigating a case against Mule Creek officials for the medical care he had received. (Id.) Plaintiff was required to leave his legal documents at Mule Creek when he was transferred to CHCF. (Id.) He was subsequently transferred back to Mule Creek to retrieve his legal documents, with the understanding that he would be transferred back to CHCF after retrieving his documents. (Id.) Instead, he was transferred to RJDCF. (Id.) Plaintiff was transferred to RJDCF on or about May 2, 2016 as a "high risk patient." (Id. at 23.) Plaintiff was transferred from Mule Creek to RJDCF, instead of CHCF, as punishment for initiating a lawsuit against Mule Creek officials. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff alleges that he was previously housed at RJDCF in 2011, but was transferred to another facility in early 2012 because of his "problems" with Defendant Walker. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff's history with Defendant Walker affected the medical care he received at RJDCF. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff's history with Defendant Walker resulted in the denial of his request to be transferred back to CHCF and his request to be designated as a full-time wheelchair user, instead of a part-time wheelchair user. (Id.)
Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Strayhorn, a correctional officer, interfered with his ability to obtain medical treatment by once forcibly removing Plaintiff from Defendant Chau's office during an appointment and by refusing to call a wheelchair pusher after Plaintiff's appointments on several occasions, leaving Plaintiff outside in hot weather for over an hour. (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiff filed three grievances regarding his medical treatment at RJDCF. The first grievance, filed on September 12, 2016, stated that Defendants Walker and Chau were not adequately treating his pain and requested that Plaintiff be prescribed stronger pain medication or sent to a facility that was equipped to treat his illnesses. (ECF No. 5 at 27-29.) Plaintiff alleges that he spoke with Defendants Walker and Chau "several times" about this first grievance, but never received a response. (Id. at 3.) However, Plaintiff states in his Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that he received a response to this grievance on May 31, 2017 and "never saw it again" after resubmitting the grievance for review. (ECF No. 20 at 7.) On November 9, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a second grievance inquiring about the status of his September 12, 2016 grievance. (ECF No. 5 at 31.) The record does not indicate when or whether Plaintiff received a response to this second grievance.
On November 29, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a third grievance stating that Defendants Walker and Chau were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs, resulting in "life threatening situations." (Id. at 54.) Plaintiff warned that the failure to treat his condition could result in further significant injury. (Id.) Plaintiff stated that Defendants Walker and Chau were aware of Plaintiff's pain but refused to respond to his pain as past doctors had. (Id.) Plaintiff stated that he asked Defendant Chau to provide him with a full-time wheelchair use accommodation, refer him to the pain management committee, and reinstate his outpatient housing status so that he could be transferred to CHCF. (Id.) In this grievance, Plaintiff requested a reinstatement of his past pain medication, a full-time wheelchair use accommodation, and a transfer to CHCF. (Id. at 52.) Plaintiff also referenced his first (September 12, 2016) grievance, stating that he spoke with Defendant Walker about this grievance but had not received it back. (Id. at 54.)
On January 13, 2017, Defendant Clayton interviewed Plaintiff about his third grievance. (Id. at 46.)4 On February 4, 2017, Defendant Barenchi denied Plaintiff's appeal of his grievance at the first level of review. (Id. at 46-47.) Plaintiff's request to be designated as a full-time wheelchair user was denied because Defendant Barenchi found that Plaintiff was able ambulate with a cane. (Id.) Plaintiff's request to be transferred to outpatient housing at CHCF was denied because Defendant Clayton had found no medical indication for a transfer. (Id.) Lastly, Plaintiff's request to have his prior pain medication reinstated was denied as Defendant Clayton had found no clear medical indication for reinstatement of Plaintiff's narcotic pain medications. (Id.)
On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff's appeal of his third grievance was denied at the second level of review by Chief Medical Executive Dr. S. Roberts. (Id. at 48.) Dr. Roberts denied Plaintiff's request to be designated as a full-time wheelchair user because examinations of Plaintiff and his medical records indicated that Plaintiff was appropriately designated as a part-time wheelchair user. (Id.) Plaintiff's request to be transferred was denied because there was no current medical indication that Plaintiff's condition required a transfer. (Id.) Dr. Roberts denied Plaintiff's request to reinstate his prior medication because he found that Plaintiff was being appropriately treated with acetaminophen and gabapentin. (Id.)
Three days later, on April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff appealed his grievance to the third level of review on May 24, 2017. (ECF No. 5 at 51.) The record does not contain a decision at the third level of review; however, Plaintiff states in his Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that he received a denial of this appeal at the third level on September 29, 2017. (ECF No. 20 at 4.)
///
Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed because the face of the complaint indicates that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 15-1 at 10.) Plaintiff argues that he exhausted all available remedies because RJDCF's grievance process is "broken." (ECF No. 20 at 4.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit and RECOMMENDS dismissal without prejudice.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires a prisoner challenging prison conditions to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. McKinney v. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial