(PC) Crayton v. Hedgpeth
1:08-cv-00621
E.D. Cal.May 20, 2011Background
- Crayton, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against numerous corrections officers alleging deliberate indifference, retaliation, ADA, and related constitutional and state-law violations.
- The amended complaint spans incidents at Salinas Valley and Kern Valley State Prisons over several years, including claims of assault, threats, property confiscation, and inadequate accommodations.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and moved for partial summary judgment; others moved to declare Crayton a vexatious litigant and for reconsideration.
- The court granted in part and denied in part: dismissing some federal claims for non-exhaustion, denying others, reinstating Crayton’s RICO claim on reconsideration, and addressing other motions.
- The court granted unopposed judicial notice of records from prior state and federal proceedings and set disposition deadlines; the vexatious-litigant motion was denied.
- The decision culminates in a consolidated order: dismissals of several claims, denial of some defenses, and a schedule for further dispositive briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for Claims 1-6 and 9 | Crayton exhausted via KVSP-06-2502 | No director’s-level decision showing exhaustion | Claims 1-6 and 9 dismissed for non-exhaustion |
| Exhaustion status for Claims 7-8, 11-12, 16-17 | Rhodes v. Robinson supports exhaustion of related post-filing claims | Exhaustion not shown for certain incidents | Claims 7-8, 16-17 preserved; Claim 11 potentially exhaustible with records; some claims dismissed or left open depending on records |
| Equitable tolling and statute of limitations (Claims 10-11) | Equitable tolling due to exhaustion and prior filings; timely filing | Claims untimely absent tolling | Claims 10-11 tolling potentially applicable; denial of summary judgment without prejudice pending proper evidentiary showing |
| ADA claims against individuals or under §1983 | ADA claims against individuals allowed under Title II; state waiver | Title II damages action cannot be brought against state officials under §1983; no individual-capacity ADA claim | ADA claims dismissed as §1983 claims; Title II damages claims not viable against individuals; alternative stance not pursued |
| Vexatious-litigant designation | Crayton’s filings show abuse of process | Need for pre-filing order against Crayton for abuse | Vexatious-litigant motion denied; Crayton warned under Rule 11 |
| RICO reconsideration | RICO claim should survive; reconsideration warranted | RICO claims inadequately pleaded (mail fraud, causation) | RICO claim reinstated; other RICO elements analyzed for viability |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (exhaustion mandatory under §1997e(a))
- Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion requirements; final director’s level decision governs)
- Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) (equitable tolling during exhaustion process; timing of relief)
- Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2010) (grievance subject/matter requirement for exhaustion)
- O’Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (exhaustion and administrative remedies mechanics)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2010) (new but related claims may be exhausted before supplemental pleadings)
- Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion not available when remedies are effectively unavailable)
- Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion analysis and director’s level review)
- Donoghue v. County of Orange, 84 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 1988) (equitable tolling during exhaustion)
- Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2002) (ADA claims and treatment; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 limitations)