Webster S. Lucas v. Jim McDonnell

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 19, 2022
• Docket: 2:19-cv-09872
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:19-cv-09872-JLS-AS Document 75 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:528

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WEBSTER S. LUCAS, Case No. CV 19-9872-JLS (AS)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 12 v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMNEDATIONS OF 13 JIM MCDONNELL, et. al., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the 18 First Amended Complaint, all of the records herein, and the Report 19 and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge. After 20 having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report 21 and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court 22 concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the 23 Magistrate Judge. However, the Court addresses the arguments 24 raised in Petitioner’s Objections below. 25 26 Plaintiff continues to argue that he sufficiently exhausted 27 administrative remedies and had no obligation to appeal the first- 28 level response to his grievance because he was satisfied with the Case 2:19-cv-09872-JLS-AS Document 75 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:529

1 response. (Objections at 1-3). As support, he cites Harvey v. 2 Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2010), which states that an 3 inmate “has no obligation to appeal from a grant of relief, or a 4 partial grant that satisfies him, in order to exhaust his 5 administrative remedies.” (emphasis added). However, as the 6 Magistrate Judge explained, Harvey is distinguishable because it 7 “turned on the fact that the prisoner was induced into abandoning 8 his appeal by the unfulfilled promise of relief.” Benitez v. Cty. 9 of Maricopa, 667 F. App’x 211, 212 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Kiner 10 v. Yang, 2021 WL 307557, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2021) 11 (distinguishing Harvey “because plaintiff was not induced to 12 abandon his appeal by any unfulfilled promise of relief”), report 13 and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 1238293 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 14 2021). Here, Plaintiff has stated that he was “satisfied” with the 15 first-level response only because it “acknowledged” that he had 16 been deprived of a bed, which was the subject of his grievance. 17 (See Pl.’s Depo. at 82; Objections at 3). Because the response did 18 not provide or promise Plaintiff any remedy, and further remedies 19 remained available, Plaintiff was obligated to fully pursue such 20 remedies before seeking relief in this Court. See Benitez, 667 F. 21 App’x at 212 (inmate had an obligation to exhaust all available 22 levels of appeal even though prison had partially granted relief 23 on ADA grievance by providing ADA accommodation); Williams v. Gage, 24 2021 WL 1176829, at *8 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 2, 2021) (“[A] prisoner 25 has an obligation to exhaust the administrative process even if he 26 is partially satisfied by the prison’s response to his grievance.”) 27 (citing Benitez, 667 F. App’x at 212), report and recommendation 28 adopted, 2021 WL 1172233 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 29, 2021).

2 Case 2:19-cv-09872-JLS-AS Document 75 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:530

1 Plaintiff also appears to argue that he was not subject to 2 the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements as a pretrial detainee in the 3 custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. (Objections 4 at 1-2 & n.1). Plaintiff is mistaken. The PLRA applies to all 5 actions brought “by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or 6 other correctional facility.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also 7 Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 402 (2015) (noting that PLRA 8 “applies to both pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners”). 9 Moreover, it is immaterial that the administrative grievance forms 10 used by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department differ from 11 those used in prisons by the California Department of Corrections 12 and Rehabilitation. As the Magistrate Judge found, the notice 13 Plaintiff received in response to his grievance expressly informed 14 him of his right to appeal within fifteen days (see Canfield Decl. 15 ¶ 9; FAC Exh. B), and Plaintiff has not justified his failure to 16 do so in any respect. In these circumstances, dismissal without 17 prejudice is warranted for failure to exhaust administrative 18 remedies. 19 20 In sum, Petitioner’s Objections do not cause the Court to 21 reconsider its decision to accept the Magistrate Judge’s 22 conclusions and recommendations. 23 24 IT IS ORDERED that (1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 25 (Dkt. No. 59) is GRANTED, and (2) Judgment shall be entered 26 27 28

3 Case 2:19-cv-09872-JLS-AS Document 75 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:531

1 |} dismissing this action, as to Defendants Canfield and Hollis, 2 || without prejudice.! 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this 5 || Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the 6 || Judgment herein on Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants. 8 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 10 11 DATED: April 19, 2022 12 oe a 13 ™ eg JOSEPHINE 7 TATON 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Defendants Canfield and Hollis were the only Defendants remaining in this action, since Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed 27 Defendant Jim McDonnell on March 2, 2022, who had not been served 28 and never appeared in the case.