Earnest Woods, II v. Tom Carey
684 F.3d 934
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Cassell Woods, a pro se inmate, sues Solano Warden Carey and Appeals Coordinator Cervantes under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for deliberate indifference to dental care; claim focuses on improper denial of two dental grievances.
- District court granted Carey’s summary judgment and dismissed one grievance; Dickenson dismissed the other coordinator from the suit; Woods proceeded to trial against Cervantes.
- District court later granted dismissal for exhaustion on the December 3, 2003 grievance; Woods lost most claims and won against Cervantes at trial.
- The district court issued Rand and Wyatt notices before any motions were filed, but those notices were served long before the motions, providing insufficient notice to Woods.
- Woods appeals, arguing the district court failed to provide fair Rand/Wyatt notice; on appeal the panel reverses and remands for proper notice at filing of motions.
- This opinion holds that Rand and Wyatt notice must be provided contemporaneously with defendants’ motions at the time they are filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timing of Rand notice must align with motions | Woods lacked fair notice due to early Rand notice | Carey/Cervantes provided Rand notice earlier as courtesy | Reversal; notice must be provided when motions are filed. |
| Wyatt notice for exhaustion must accompany when evidence record is developed | Woods needed notice about developing a record to defeat dismissal for non-exhaustion | Record could be developed in response to motions | Reversal; proper Wyatt notice required at time of filing motions. |
| Remedy for failure to provide timely notice | If notified properly, Woods might prevail on exhaustion or merits | Remand unnecessary if no facts show possible recovery | Remand with proper notice; apply Rand/Wyatt rules to re-filed motions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (fair notice required for pro se prisoners on Rule 56 motions; model notice included)
- Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (fair notice to defeat exhaustion motions when record may be developed)
- Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988) (district courts must advise pro per litigants of Rule 56 requirements)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion under PLRA not satisfied if grievance denied as untimely)
- Hudson v. Hardy, 412 F.2d 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (basis for fair notice requirement in prisoner cases)
- Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989) (supervisor liability requires notice of violations to act)