United States District Court, D. Oregon
FRANK E. VOTH, Plaintiff,
JEFF PREMO; MS. COFFY; CAPTAIN LONG; JANET BIRDY WORLEY; JANE/JOHN DOE, Defendants.
Frank E. Voth, Ontario, OR, Pro se Plaintiff.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Jake J. Hogue, Assistant Attorney General, Shannon M. Vincent, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
GARR M. KING, District Judge.
Plaintiff is currently an inmate incarcerated at Snake River Correctional Institution ("SRCI"), but he was incarcerated at the Oregon State Penitentiary ("OSP") during the events alleged in his Amended Complaint. The following motions are pending before me: defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment , plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition , plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction , and plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief . For the following reasons, I grant defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and I deny all of plaintiff's motions.
In his operative pleading-the Amended Complaint filed on March 18, 2014-plaintiff alleges Superintendent Jeff Premo, Dennis Long, Carrie Coffey, and Janet (Birdie) Worley, all employees at OSP, violated various constitutional and statutory rights. He contends, for example, that Superintendent Premo was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, has subjected him to contaminated water and air, has violated his religious rights by requiring him to shower and use the toilet in front of female correctional officers, and has failed to protect him from assaults. The earliest event plaintiff complains about occurred on July 5, 2013.
I. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants seek judgment dismissing this case on the basis that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to any of the claims he alleges in his Amended Complaint.
A. Legal Standards
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") states: "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, 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." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In other words, "[t]he [PLRA] requires that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action concerning prison conditions." Griffin v. Arpaio , 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). The PLRA exhaustion requirement demands "proper exhaustion, " which means compliance with all deadlines and "other critical procedural rules." Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90, 93 (2006).
It is the defendants' burden "to prove there was an available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy." Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014). The burden of production then shifts to the prisoner to "come forward with evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him." Id . The "ultimate burden of proof remains with the defendant[s]." Id . The court must view all material facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 1173. "If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner shows a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56." Id. at 1166.
B. Whether Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies is Excused
ODOC Grievance Coordinator at OSP, Brent Eriksen, located only two grievances submitted by plaintiff during the relevant time period. Neither of those grievances relates to the events or claims alleged by plaintiff in his operative pleading. ...