Summary
This United States District Court order addresses a Ninth Circuit remand regarding whether a specific prison grievance was properly exhausted under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for the plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim. After examining the procedural history and available records, the court determines that the plaintiff failed to raise the grievance during the initial proceedings or on appeal. Accordingly, the court re-issues its prior order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and directs the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether grievance 20063045067 is part of Plaintiff's claims and therefore can be considered in the summary‑judgment analysis.
Holdings
- Grievance 20063045067 is not part of the lawsuit because Plaintiff never raised it at the pleading, summary‑judgment, or appellate stages; consequently, the court re‑issues its order granting summary judgment for failure to exhaust.
Key quotations
“A bedrock principle in the adversary system is that “in both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal, [courts] follow the principle of party presentation.” Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008). This means that courts should “rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id.” (at 8-9)
Factual background
Plaintiff Kentrell Welch, while incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He filed several administrative grievances, including grievance 20063045067 on or about March 20, 2017, which the Ninth Circuit found to be exhausted, but the plaintiff never raised this grievance in his complaint or summary‑judgment briefing.
Procedural history
The district court originally granted summary judgment to the defendants for failure to exhaust administrative grievances. The Ninth Circuit vacated that order, remanded for development of the record concerning grievance 20063045067, and instructed the district court to evaluate the exhausted claim. The district court, after supplemental briefing, re‑issued its summary‑judgment order.