Javiad Akhtar v. J. Mesa
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22701
9th Cir.2012Background
- Akhtar is a pro se California prisoner with multiple medical conditions and mobility/hearing impairments.
- Akhtar alleged Mesa and Turner violated the Eighth Amendment by not complying with his medical chrono requiring ground-floor housing, and by denying an interpreter at medical appointments.
- The district court dismissed Akhtar’s first amended complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and did not address objections raised in Akhtar’s filings.
- Akhtar attached grievances and appeals to his initial complaint showing attempts to exhaust administrative remedies; the district court treated these issues as unexhausted.
- The panel vacated and remanded, holding that the district court abused its discretion by not considering new arguments raised in objections, and by misapplying exhaustion and failure-to-state-a-claim standards.
- On remand, the court must address Rand notice requirements and whether Akhtar exhausted the claims before filing, and it must consider the merits of the Eighth Amendment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by not considering Akhtar’s objections. | Akhtar argues pro se status and disabilities required consideration of his objections. | Mesa/Turner contend objections were appropriately not considered. | Yes, district court abused discretion. |
| Whether Akhtar exhausted administrative remedies for the housing chrono claim. | Grievances before filing showed exhaustion of the housing chrono claim. | Exhaustion not shown for this claim. | Exhaustion shown; claim not properly dismissed. |
| Whether Akhtar exhausted the interpreter claim. | Records indicate attempts to obtain interpreter, suggesting exhaustion. | Exhaustion not clearly shown for the interpreter claim. | Exhaustion not clearly established in the record. |
| Whether the first amended complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. | Facts show failure to comply with medical chrono and harm from E-bunk move. | Alleged harms and causal link insufficient at dismissal stage. | Plaintiff stated a plausible claim; dismissal was improper. |
| Whether Rand notice was required and provided on the exhaustion motion. | Rand notice required pro se plaintiffs to respond to exhaustion motion. | Rand notice not provided. | Rand notice required; its absence is error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. United States, 231 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court may consider new evidence raised in objections and must actually exercise discretion)
- Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion if district court fails to consider pro se circumstances)
- Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (pro se objections require consideration of crucial facts absent from pleadings)
- Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion deemed before dismissal; court may look beyond pleadings for unenumerated Rule 12(b) motions)
- McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion requirement applies to pre-suit claims; post-filing exhaustion for amended claims)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (two-pronged test for deliberate indifference: serious medical need and deliberate indifference to response)