McClure v. Chen, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1286

Background

Plaintiff George McClure, a state prisoner with epilepsy, fell from an assigned upper bunk despite a lower-bunk chrono, suffered a head/eye injury and later lost vision in his left eye.
He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference against Dr. C.K. Chen and PA C. Horton for inadequate post-fall eye care.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (2) merits, and (3) qualified immunity.
The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for failure to exhaust. McClure objected and the district court reviewed de novo.
The court found plaintiff filed two inmate appeals about the eye injury; one appeal was granted at the first level and the other was pursued until resolution. Records show plaintiff saw Chen and Horton prior to filing the July 2011 appeal.
The district court declined to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings, concluded exhaustion was satisfied, denied defendants’ motion without prejudice, and permitted renewal on merits/qualified immunity with procedural guidance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PLRA exhaustion was satisfied before suit	McClure contends his two KVSP appeals exhausted administrative remedies; one was granted at first level so no further appeal required	Defendants contend appeals were cancelled or did not name Chen/Horton and thus did not exhaust	Court held exhaustion satisfied: one appeal was granted at first level and appeals put prison on notice; defendants failed to show lack of exhaustion
Whether appeals adequately notified prison of claims against unnamed staff	McClure argues appeals described the eye injury and delay in care, giving notice of the claim against treating staff	Defendants argue failure to name Chen/Horton precludes exhaustion as to them	Court held naming not required where appeals were addressed on merits and there was a sufficient connection to the unnamed defendants (notice/opportunity to resolve)
Effect of an appeal cancelled at second level	McClure notes the appeal was granted at first level so cancellation at second level does not defeat exhaustion	Defendants rely on declaration that appeal was canceled at second level to argue non-exhaustion	Court held grant at first level moots need to proceed; exhaustion satisfied when relief obtained at intermediate level
Disposition of remaining summary judgment grounds (merits, qualified immunity)	McClure: merits unresolved; seeks adjudication on deliberate indifference	Defendants: request summary judgment on merits and qualified immunity if exhaustion fails	Court denied summary judgment without prejudice as to merits/qualified immunity and allowed defendants to renew motion with proper notice and opportunity for plaintiff to amend opposition

Key Cases Cited

Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2010) (grievance suffices if it notifies prison of the problem)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; inmates need not plead exhaustion)
Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2009) (state prison system rules define exhaustion boundaries)
Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) (no obligation to pursue further levels once all available remedies obtained)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion requires pursuing available administrative remedies)
Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2012) (remedies effectively unavailable may excuse exhaustion)
Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (prison official errors can excuse exhaustion)
Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2010) (no duty to appeal a grant of relief to exhaust)
Keyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016) (procedural noncompliance excused where officials decide grievance on the merits)