Scott v. NaphCare
3:19-cv-00347
D. Nev.Jun 13, 2023Background
- Plaintiff James Edward Scott, a pro se detainee at Clark County Detention Center (CCDC), alleges Dr. Larry Williamson’s administration of lisinopril caused severe kidney injury.
- Dr. Williamson moved for summary judgment and, after the Court issued an Order resolving report and recommendations, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration arguing the Court omitted consideration of PLRA administrative exhaustion. He also filed a Motion to Strike Scott’s request to respond; Scott sought leave to file a surreply.
- The parties dispute which grievance policy governed medical claims at CCDC: a CCDC grievance form (used by Scott) and a separate NaphCare grievance policy (governing claims against NaphCare providers) that included a three-level appeals process.
- Scott filed two grievances on the CCDC "Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Inmate Request/Grievance" form but did not use NaphCare’s specific health-care forms or appeals; Scott contends he was never informed of NaphCare’s policy or given its forms and only signed electronically without being shown the documents.
- The Court found conflicting and confusing grievance materials (CCDC handbook omitted appeals; NaphCare policy required specific health-care forms) and a lack of evidence that NaphCare forms were provided, concluding the NaphCare grievance process was effectively unavailable to Scott.
- Result: the Court denied Dr. Williamson’s Motion for Reconsideration, granted Scott leave to file a surreply, and denied Dr. Williamson’s Motion to Strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should reconsider its Order for omitting exhaustion analysis | Scott: Court’s prior resolution stands; exhaustion facts are disputed | Williamson: Court omitted exhaustion ground; reconsideration warranted | Denied — Court addressed exhaustion and found reasons to deny reconsideration |
| Whether Scott exhausted PLRA administrative remedies | Scott: He used available CCDC grievance forms and was unaware of NaphCare appeals; NaphCare process was effectively unavailable | Williamson: NaphCare grievance policy (with appeals) existed and Scott failed to appeal, so remedies not exhausted | Held for Scott — remedies were effectively unavailable; exhaustion requirement satisfied |
| Whether NaphCare grievance process was "available" | Scott: Not available as a practical matter—forms, notice, and appeals were not provided | Williamson: Policy existed and governed claims against NaphCare personnel | Held for Scott — inconsistencies and lack of form/notice meant process was not available |
| Whether Scott may file a surreply and whether Williamson’s motion to strike should be granted | Scott: As pro se, seeks leave to respond to Williamson’s reply | Williamson: Move to strike Scott’s submission | Court granted Scott leave to file surreply and denied motion to strike |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires "proper exhaustion" under applicable procedural rules)
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (administrative remedies are required only if they are "available"; outlines three circumstances rendering process unavailable)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion requirement applies to §1983 prisoner suits)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; summary judgment standard when exhaustion undisputed)
- Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) (burden-shifting framework: defendant shows availability and non-exhaustion; plaintiff may show unavailability)
- Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2016) (remedies not "available" when officials fail to provide required forms or threaten retaliation)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (standards for Rule 60(b) relief and limits on post-judgment relief)