This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Prisoners' Rights

Aubrey J. Demmings v. CDCR, et al.

Published: Feb. 5, 2021 | Result Date: Jan. 12, 2021 |

Case number: 2:19-cv-00945-RGK-MAA Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

R. Gary Klausner

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Petitioner

Pro Per


Respondent

Jeremy C. Doernberger
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Aubrey J. Demmings was an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation incarcerated at California State Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California. Demmings submitted various reasonable accommodation panel requests that were all denied and a healthcare grievance was still pending when Demmings filed a complaint. He alleged violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 while he was serving his sentence at a California State Prison. The complaint was amended three times and ultimately sought recourse based on the alleged conducts of M. Seliktar, clinical therapist at CSP-LAC, and Sergeant S. Bermudez. Seliktar and Bermudez filed a motion for summary judgment and the magistrate judge produced a report and recommendation on how the case should be decided.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that his reasonable accommodation panel requests were denied in error. He was unable to receive the treatment he needed for his mental health needs and therefore violated section 1983 for failing to provide plaintiff with the necessary treatment.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing his complaints against them. The exhaustion of remedies requirement is mandatory under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Despite being informed and required to submit his claims to administrative reviews, plaintiff failed to follow the proper procedure and jumped directly to filing a complaint. As a result, defendants moved for summary judgment based on plaintiff's procedurally flawed claims.

Result

The magistrate recommended defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and the court adopted the recommendation in its entirety.


#136566

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390