Opinion
1:20-cv-00005-DAD-JLT (PC)
04-26-2022
PAUL NIVARD BEATON, Plaintiff, v. VALLEY STATE PRISON and J. VALENZUELA-QUEZADA, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, VACATING PRIOR ORDER ADOPTING AND AGAIN ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UPON RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. Nos. 59, 61, 63, 64)
Plaintiff Paul Nivard Beaton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 10, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Doc. No. 59.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the order. (Id. at 9.)
On December 7, 2021, the undersigned adopted those findings and recommendations in full and granted summary judgment. (Doc. No. 61.) On December 9, 2021, the court received plaintiff's motion dated November 18, 2021, seeking an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 63.) Plaintiff's motion for extension of time also included his proposed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) On December 27, 2021, the court then received plaintiff's objections to the order adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 64.) On December 28, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the undersigned's December 7, 2021 order. (Doc. No. 66.) On January 6, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order holding plaintiff's appeal in abeyance until this court determines “whether appellant's December 27, 2021 filing is a motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) and if so, the district court's resolution of the motion.” (Doc. No. 68 at 1.)
In his filing received by the court on December 9, 2021, plaintiff argues that the court should reconsider its December 7, 2021 order in light of his objections to the findings and recommendations, arguing that the untimely receipt of the objections should be excused due to delays in the mail between the prison where he is incarcerated and the court. (Doc. No. 64 at 17.) Plaintiff also attached to that filing some of the same documents he provided in connection with his proposed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 64 at 8-14 and 63 at 10-14.) This court construes plaintiff's December 27, 2021 filing (Doc. No. 64) as a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned's December 7, 2021 order adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations filed November 10, 2021.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.
Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law, ” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion, ” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered.
Here, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration plausibly contends that he gave his objections to the findings and recommendations and motion for an extension of time to prison officials for mailing on November 18, 2021, well within the fourteen day deadline for the filing of those objections. (Doc. No. 64; see Doc. No. 63.) Under the mailbox rule announced in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), a pro se prisoner's court filing is deemed filed at the time the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009). As such, plaintiff's objections are timely under the mailbox rule. Because plaintiff's objections were received by the court two days after the court issued its December 7, 2021 order adopting the findings and recommendations, plaintiff's objections were not considered at the time of the issuance of the order adopting. Therefore, the court will grant plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 64) and also grant plaintiff's motion to accept and consider his objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 63) as timely filed under the mailbox rule. The undersigned therefore hereby vacates the December 7, 2021 order adopting the findings and recommendations and will conduct a de novo review of this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
In his objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, plaintiff argues that he did exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing the operative complaint in this action, pointing to a letter dated February 6, 2020 from California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”) in response to plaintiff's correspondence regarding inmate grievance number VSP PHCI 19000016. (Doc. No. 63 at 12.) That letter states that the issues raised by plaintiff in inmate grievance number VSP PHCI 19000016 were previously addressed on January 28, 2020 at the headquarters' level in response to plaintiff's health care inmate grievance numbered VSP HC 19000622. (Id.) Plaintiff highlights that the letter he received from CCHCS stated “[t]he headquarters' level review constitutes the final disposition on your health care grievance and exhausts your remedies.” (Id. (alteration in original).) Plaintiff also contends that his inmate grievance number VSP PHCI 19000016 was actually “about [defendant] Nurse Valenzuela-Quezada, ” arguing that the inmate grievance he filed did not name defendant Valenzuela-Quezada only because, at the time of filing that inmate grievance, he believed defendant's name to be Ana Galindo until he “went back to the RVR [Rule Violation Report] [when he] then discovered her tru[e] name [to be] Nurse Valenzuela-Quezada [. . .]” (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff asserts that his inmate grievance number VSP PHCI 19000016 properly exhausted his administrative remedies as to his claims now brought against defendant Valenzuela-Quezada. (Id.)
Plaintiff's arguments are unpersuasive. Even were the court to construe the CCHCS letter to be a final disposition of plaintiff's inmate grievance number VSP PHCI 19000016 (based on the January 28, 2020 final disposition of inmate grievance number VSP HC 19000622), the letter was dated February 6, 2020 (see id. at 12), a full month after plaintiff filed his original complaint in this action on January 2, 2020. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing suit, not during the pendency of the suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002).
Furthermore, the inmate grievances upon which plaintiff relies did not identify defendant Valenzuela-Quezada, but rather mentioned an Ana Galindo and a nurse supervisor Flores. (See Doc. No. 53-5 at 21-23.) Defendant cannot attribute an inmate grievance after the fact to a defendant who was not mentioned in or involved in that grievance process, and then claim that the grievance actually exhausted his claims against that later named defendant. Despite plaintiff's alleged confusion as to the name of defendant, an inmate grievance that does not identify a defendant during any part of the administrative process, does not correct an alleged initial misidentification, and does not describe a defendant's involvement in the conduct or issue that is the subject of the inmate grievance does not exhaust that plaintiff's administrative remedies with respect to that later named defendant. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a)(3); see also Burton v. Lee, No. 3:12-cv-03158-JST, 2019 WL 12450869, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2019), aff'd, 851 Fed.Appx. 777 (9th Cir. 2021).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, and upon reconsideration the court finds the November 10, 2021 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above:
1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 64) is granted;
2. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendation (Doc. No. 63) is granted;
3. This court's order adopting the findings and recommendations issued on
December 7, 2021 (Doc. No. 61) is vacated;
4. Having now considered the merits of plaintiff's objections (Doc. No. 63), the findings and recommendations issued on November 10, 2021 (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in full;
5. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 53) is granted due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required and this action is dismissed without prejudice; and
6. This case shall remain closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.