From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. B. Gricewich

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Aug 19, 2009
No. F055968 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Linda S. Etienne, Commissioner. Super. Ct. No. CV262151

Ray Byron Ford, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.


OPINION

CORNELL, Acting P.J.

Ray Byron Ford was an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) when he observed correctional officers treat another inmate in a manner that offended him. Ford filed a claim with the Inmate Appeals Board, reciting the facts of the incident and alleging that he suffered personal injury as a result. The Inmate Appeals Board denied the claim, asserting that Ford could not submit a claim on behalf of another inmate. Ford unsuccessfully attempted to pursue the claim as one for his own injuries.

Ford filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court naming the members of the appeals board as respondents and seeking to compel them to reconsider his claim. Ford appealed to this court when the petition was denied. We conclude that Ford has not stated facts that would entitle him to any remedy he sought and affirm the order denying the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Ford submitted an inmate appeal form dated April 12, 2007, with the appeals coordinator. The form has three “RECEIVED” dates, indicating the form was submitted three times. The first date is an illegible date in April. The form also was submitted on May 14, 2007, and July 20, 2007.

The form states that it is a complaint resulting from the inhumane treatment of a “‘human being’” that caused Ford to suffer mental and emotional pain. Ford stated he observed a restrained, naked, African-American inmate being escorted by correctional officers to an outside area in front of the clothing room. The inmate was ordered to get on his knees and was hosed off by the correctional officers. The correctional officers were not African-Americans. At the time, the exercise yard was full, and the inmates in the yard could see the inmate being hosed off while restrained by the correctional officers.

Ford alleges he suffered emotional injury as a result of these events because the act was reminiscent of “(1) what AFRICANS endured as ‘slaves’ being ‘paraded’ or ‘displayed’ either to be auctioned or disciplined (showing other BLACKS [me] what can happen to them [me] if they [I] ‘get outta [sic] line’); and (2) what BLACKS suffered during the ‘Civil Rights Struggle’ during the 1960s in America. I have since then been profoundly disturbed with consternation because it can just as easily happen to me; soley [sic] because I am BLACK. This discomfiture has even found its way into my sleep, causing nightmares of me being ‘hosed-off’ by guards.”

Ford requested an “Internal Affair Investigation” into staff misconduct, a promise there would be no retaliation against him, exhaustion of administrative remedies, damages for his suffering, and the firing of the employees involved in the incident.

On May 7, 2007, the appeals coordinator responded to Ford’s appeal. Ford was informed that he could not submit an appeal on behalf of another inmate, and that his appeal was “referred to the hiring authority for possible investigation outside of the appeals process.” We understand this comment to mean the matter was referred for investigation and possible disciplinary action against the involved correctional officers.

By handwritten letter dated May 10, 2007, Ford responded to the appeals coordinator’s May 7 letter. In his letter, Ford stated that he personally suffered mental and emotional injury from the events he observed. The appeal was filed “on my own behalf to address my injuries,” and not on behalf of another inmate.

The appeals coordinator responded to Ford’s letter of explanation by letter dated May 18, 2007. The letter stated that Ford “may not submit an appeal on behalf of another inmate” and stated his appeal would not be processed further.

Ford submitted another appeal form on May 31, 2007. In this appeal, Ford complained that he was being deprived of the right to file a complaint by the appeals coordinator’s denial of his April 12 appeal.

The appeals coordinator responded to the May 31 appeal with a letter dated June 15, 2007, advising Ford that he “[m]ay not appeal a screening decision.” Ford was directed to resubmit the original appeal with an explanation.

On June 19, 2007, Ford submitted an “INMATE REQUEST FOR INTERVIEW.” The reasons for the interview provided by Ford were (1) he wanted a citation to the authority on which the appeals coordinator relied in rejecting his latest appeal on the basis of the nonappealability of screening decisions, (2) and to determine why he again should resubmit his original appeal with an explanation when he had done so already.

On July 5, 2007, apparently in response to Ford’s request for an interview, the appeals coordinator informed Ford in writing that an appeal screening decision may not be appealed and instructed him to resubmit his original appeal.

On July 17, 2007, Ford submitted another inmate request for interview. The stated purpose of the request was to resubmit the original appeal along with his May 10 explanation. Ford again asked for the authority on which the appeals coordinator relied when Ford was informed that screening decisions may not be appealed.

A memorandum from the appeals coordinator to the hiring authority concluded that the appeal did not meet the requirement for a staff complaint, and the appeal should be subject to routine processing. On July 27, the appeals coordinator returned Ford’s appeal, informing him that a screening decision may not be appealed.

On October 18, 2007, Ford filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Kern County Superior Court. The petition alleged that Ford was incarcerated in KVSP and on April 12, 2007, Ford submitted a grievance pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3084.1. Ford recited the above sequence of events in the petition. He claimed that he demonstrated that the actions of employees of KVSP adversely affected his mental well-being, thereby presenting an actionable claim entitling him to damages. The grievance also adversely affected his civil rights, thereby creating an actionable claim. Ford requested the trial court issue a writ of mandate requiring KVSP to process and determine the merit of the grievance.

The trial judge denied the writ without explanation, no statement of decision having been requested. Neither party appeared at the hearing on the writ.

DISCUSSION

Although far from clear, it appears that Ford is arguing that the appeals coordinator failed to give his appeal appropriate consideration by relying on rejection criteria that were not applicable. The appeals coordinator may have argued the appeal was considered and rejected as unmeritorious, if an appearance had been made in this court.

We need not get involved in this debate because it is clear, for a variety of reasons, that there is no merit to Ford’s complaint.

To the extent that Ford was seeking monetary relief, he cannot do so because he failed to establish there was a close familial relationship between himself and the prisoner who was involved in the incident. As explained in Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 667-668, recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is limited to those who are closely related to the injured victim. Since Ford has not alleged any such relationship existed, he cannot recover for his claimed injuries.

Also, Ford has not identified any injury to his civil rights. His only involvement in the incident was as an observer. He does not allege any other involvement. Ford has not cited, nor can we conceive of, any authority that would suggest observing an incident that offended one’s sensibilities results in a violation of one’s civil rights.

Ford also requested in his petition that his administrative remedies be exhausted. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a remedy that can be provided by a court, or by an inmate appeal. One’s administrative remedies are exhausted when one follows the procedure set up by statute or rule to ensure that all requirements are met before filing an action.

Finally, Ford requested that an investigation be commenced and the correctional officers involved in the incident be terminated. Ford has not cited any authority to suggest that an inmate appeal is the proper forum for disciplining correctional officers for conduct committed while on duty. Nor have we located any such authority. This is simply a remedy that is not available to Ford.

We note that the facility apparently commenced an investigation into the incident as a result of Ford’s complaint. The facility, however, cannot be compelled to conduct a review or reach a specific result if a review is conducted.

As Ford cannot recover any damages for the incident related in his petition, the decision of the trial court to deny the petition was correct.

DISPOSITION

The order denying the petition is affirmed. No costs are awarded.

WE CONCUR: DAWSON, J., KANE, J.


Summaries of

Ford v. B. Gricewich

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Aug 19, 2009
No. F055968 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2009)
Case details for

Ford v. B. Gricewich

Case Details

Full title:RAY BYRON FORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B. GRICEWICH et al.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 19, 2009

Citations

No. F055968 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2009)