Kenneth Griffin v. J. Bal , 609 F. App'x 493 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH A. GRIFFIN, No. 11-17848
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02525-MCE-
JFM
v.
J. BAL; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District
Judge**
California state prisoner Kenneth A. Griffin appeals from the district court’s
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for clear
error any underlying factual findings. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838
(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en
banc)). We reverse in part.
The district court was correct in dismissing the Salinas Valley prison
defendants. The primary purpose of an administrative grievance is to alert a prison
to a problem and facilitate its resolution. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120
(9th Cir. 2009). Griffin’s administrative proceedings had concluded before he was
transferred to the Salinas Valley prison. Griffin’s grievance did not alert that
prison because he had not yet been transferred. Therefore, the district court did not
err in dismissing the Salinas Valley prison defendants: Rhoads, Bright, Sepulveda,
and Pompan.1
The district court dismissed Griffin’s claims against the California State
Prison Sacramento defendants because it held as a matter of law that Griffin had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Griffin claimed that he was
“satisfied” with the administrative relief partially granted to him at the first and
1
Defendant Pompan also moved to dismiss on statute of limitations
grounds. The district court found Griffin waived opposition and granted dismissal.
On appeal, Griffin waived the issue by not raising it in his opening brief. Balser v.
Dep’t of Justice, 327 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 11-17848
second levels of administrative review. Once prison officials at California State
Prison Sacramento purported to grant relief with which Griffin was satisfied,
Griffin’s exhaustion obligation ended. See Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 686
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that when a prison promises a partial grant of relief with
which a prisoner is satisfied, that prisoner has no obligation to further appeal). His
appeal to the third administrative level was simply a reminder grievance. See id. at
685. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the California State Prison
Sacramento defendants. On remand, the defendants may still contest whether
Griffin was satisfied, as a matter of fact, using the procedures we set out in Albino.
747 F.3d at 1169-71.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. All
parties to bear their own costs of appeal.
3 11-17848