Moffitt v. Winslow

Background

Brian Moffitt, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning medical care he received while previously incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. In his amended complaint, Moffitt named only Dr. D. Winslow and alleged that Winslow knew about his severe lower-back pain, failed to arrange an orthopedic consultation, failed to provide access to a competent physician, and denied him a lower bunk. The court had previously found that these allegations stated a potentially valid Eighth Amendment claim.

Moffitt had originally named Dr. Winslow, Dr. Lenoir, and Registered Nurse N. Podolsky. Because the amended complaint named only Winslow, the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants. Moffitt later sought permission to file a second amended complaint to add Dr. Lenoir, explaining that omitting Lenoir from the amended complaint had been a typing error.

Administrative grievance

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to properly exhaust available prison administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit concerning prison conditions. Proper exhaustion requires using all available steps of the prison’s grievance process and following its procedural rules.

Moffitt submitted health-care grievance SQ HC 20001546 concerning his back and knee pain, difficulty climbing to a top bunk, and request for a lower-bunk medical authorization. Dr. Winslow issued the institutional-level response on May 4, 2021, listing the disposition as “No intervention.” The response stated that Moffitt had received medical evaluation and monitoring, that treatment included a planned lumbar-spine X-ray, physical therapy, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen, and that he did not meet the criteria for a lower-bunk authorization. The response also instructed Moffitt to submit the grievance package for headquarters-level review if he disagreed.

The records reviewed by Health Care Correspondence and Appeals Branch Acting Chief K. Martin did not show that Moffitt submitted this grievance for headquarters-level review. The form’s headquarters-level section was blank, and the records contained no headquarters-level disposition. Moffitt asserted that he had submitted the grievance to headquarters but had not received a response, making that step unavailable. He did not provide a copy of the alleged headquarters submission or other supporting evidence.

Court’s analysis and rulings

Dr. Winslow moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court explained that Winslow had the initial burden to produce evidence that an available administrative remedy existed and had not been exhausted. That burden then shifted to Moffitt to provide evidence that something particular to his situation made the process effectively unavailable. The court found that Winslow met the initial burden through the grievance-history records and Martin’s declaration. It found that Moffitt’s unsupported and conclusory statements did not create a factual dispute or show that the grievance process was unavailable.

The court therefore granted Dr. Winslow’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Moffitt failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. Pursuant to Ninth Circuit law, the court dismissed without prejudice Moffitt’s Eighth Amendment claim.

The court also denied Moffitt’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. It reasoned that adding Dr. Lenoir would be futile because the same lack of evidence showing headquarters-level exhaustion applied to Moffitt’s claim against Lenoir. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the file.