United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court
Court has before it several motions. As explained below, the
Court will grant summary judgment in favor of all defendants,
and dismiss this case in its entirety.
a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of
Corrections. He alleges that in November of 2011, while
incarcerated at Idaho Correctional Institution-Orofino
(ICI-O), he became ill with an antibiotic resistant strain of
“C- Diff” and had severe, bloody diarrhea for
several months that went untreated and left him permanently
underweight and incontinent. He alleges that when he became
ill at ICI-O he filed Medical Care Request Forms, but
Defendant York, a nurse practitioner, refused to see him for
approximately 60 days. Carr further alleges that when York
finally examined him, York diagnosed him as suffering from
hemorrhoids and gave him hemorrhoid cream. Thus, York
examined Carr, determined a diagnosis, and provided him with
also filed a separate lawsuit, Carr v. Higgins et.
al. (Case No. 1:13-cv-00380-REB), in which he alleged
that a correctional officer told him that another
correctional officer had put human feces in Plaintiff's
food in November 2011, and that Carr learned this information
within a few days of when he alleges he ate the feces-laced
food. Carr further alleges that he became immediately and
violently ill. However, it appears that Carr withheld the
information that he may have consumed human feces from York
and other medical providers. Thus, Carr went to his medical
providers with an uncommon illness, the medical providers had
no reason to believe he had been exposed to feces-laced food,
and they followed a regular course of attempting to diagnose
the problem. The other case was ultimately dismissed on
summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
also states that in February or March of 2012, he was seen by
a doctor who diagnosed him with “C-Diff” and
prescribed him an antibiotic, which he claims did not work.
He states that he repeatedly asked ICI-O Warden Carlyn for
help during this time period, but did not receive any help.
Carr further alleges that prison officials failed to protect
him from assault, and that prison officials violated his
right to send and receive mail.
review of Carr's Amended Complaint, the Court allowed
Carr to proceed with the following claims: (1) Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference medical care claim against
Rory York; (2) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
medical care claims against Dr. Whinnery, Tina Williams, and
Shelly Mallet; (3) Eighth Amendment interference with medical
care claim against Sergeant Higgins; (4) First Amendment mail
interference claim against Officer Maddox and Lieutenant
Woodland; (5) Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim
against Physician's Assistant Valley, Sergeant Link,
Sergeant Carter, and Lieutenant Aiello; and (6) First
Amendment free speech claim against Sergeant Mechtel. The
claims are now before the Court on summary judgment, except
the claim against Rory York, who passed away on March 12,
2014. Dkt. 32.
Corizon Defendants (Dr. Whinnery, Williams, Mallet, and
Valley) are Entitled to Summary Judgment.
must exhaust their available administrative remedies before
bringing civil rights actions based on prison conditions. The
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)
requires exhaustion of administrative remedies for all
federal claims brought by state prisoners who challenge the
conditions of their confinement in a federal complaint.
“No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
federal law, until such administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Exhaustion must be proper; meaning “a prisoner must
complete the administrative review process in accordance with
the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a
precondition to bringing suit in federal court.”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006). “The
level of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the
grievance procedures will vary from system to system and
claim to claim, but it is the prison's requirements, and
not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper
exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218
law also requires that prisoners exhaust administrative
remedies before proceeding with civil lawsuits. Idaho Code
§ 19-4206(1). The Idaho Court of Appeals has interpreted
this statutory provision to require exhaustion for all civil
actions related to conditions of confinement. Drennon v.
Idaho State Corr. Inst., 181 P.3d 524, 526 (Idaho
Ct.App.2007). Likewise, Idaho requires that the prisoner meet
procedural deadlines to exhaust administrative remedies
properly. Butters v. Valdez, 241 P.3d 7, 12 (Idaho
Ct.App.2010) (Relying on federal law interpreting 42 U.S.C.
Ninth Circuit, a claim that a prisoner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that should
be brought as an unenumerated motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wyatt v.
Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.2002). Defendants
have the burden to plead and prove exhaustion, and the
reviewing court may look beyond the pleadings to resolve
disputed issues of fact, if necessary. Id.
the Corizon defendants have brought such a motion, and they
have met their burden. IDOC's grievance procedure for
inmates is set forth in Defendants' statement of facts
and supporting affidavits. See Pitzer Aff., ¶
3, Dkt. 52-3. The IDOC grievance process is contained
generally in IDOC Policy 316: Offender Grievance Process. The
grievance procedure is ...