Summary
The document contains findings and recommendations by a magistrate judge in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil-rights action. The court recommends granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment because claims arising before July 1, 2018 are barred by the statute of limitations and claims arising afterward were not fully exhausted under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The recommendation was issued subject to a fourteen-day period for objections.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether claims arising from medical treatment before July 1, 2018 were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
- Whether Wane exhausted available administrative remedies for claims arising from medical treatment after July 1, 2018.
- Whether the continuing-violations doctrine allowed the earlier exhausted grievance to exhaust later claims concerning corrective surgery.
- Whether Defendants were entitled to summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Holdings
- Claims arising from Wane's medical treatment before July 1, 2018 were barred by the applicable statute of limitations because he filed the action on July 1, 2022 and did not establish entitlement to additional equitable tolling.
- Wane failed to exhaust available administrative remedies for claims arising after July 1, 2018 because he did not pursue grievance SATF HC 18001577 through the headquarters level.
- The continuing-violations doctrine did not allow Wane's earlier exhausted grievance to exhaust his later claims because the later grievance sought a new and more specific course of conduct—corrective surgery—that was not raised in the earlier grievance.
Key quotations
“summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, disclosure materials, discovery, and any affidavits provided establish that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”” (at 2)
““No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”” (at 6)
“a properly exhausted prison grievance asserting ‘one, continuing harm or a single course of conduct’ can exhaust events arising out of the same alleged violation that occur after the grievance was made.” (at 11)
Factual background
Wane, a California state prisoner, alleged that Celexa prescribed by Defendant Chen caused breast enlargement, pain, and discharge, and that Defendant Kokor failed to adequately treat the resulting condition. He submitted one grievance in 2017 that was exhausted at the headquarters level and a second grievance in 2018 requesting corrective surgery, but the record did not show that the second grievance was appealed to the headquarters level. Wane filed this § 1983 action on July 1, 2022.
Procedural history
Wane proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis on claims against Doctors Chen and Kokor concerning alleged failure to treat side effects from Celexa medication. He filed the action on July 1, 2022. After briefing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice, subject to review by the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Remand instructions
No remand was ordered. The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice. The parties were given fourteen days to file objections with the assigned district judge.