The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARLON EDWARDS, No. 1:25-cv-00120-SAB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
13 v. TO THIS ACTION
14 DR. KALEKA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
15 Defendants. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
16 (ECF No. 27)
17
18
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983.
20
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed October
21
29, 2025.
22
I.
23
BACKGROUND
24
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Defendants
25
Dr. Kaleka, Dr. Odeluga, and Dr. A. Shittu. (ECF No. 9.)
26
Defendants filed an answer to the operative complaint on June 17, 2025. (ECF No. 21.)
27
On July 2, 2025, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 25.)
28
1 On October 29, 2025, Defendants Kaleka and Shittu filed a motion for summary judgment
2 for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.1 (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff did not file an
3 opposition and the time to do so has passed. Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, Defendants’
4 motion for summary judgment is deemed submitted without oral argument. (Id.)
5 II.
6 LEGAL STANDARD
7 A. Statutory Exhaustion Requirement
8 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995, requires that prisoners exhaust “such
9 administrative remedies as are available” before commencing a suit challenging prison
10 conditions.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638 (2016) (“An
11 inmate, that is, must exhaust available remedies, but need not exhaust unavailable ones.”).
12 Exhaustion is mandatory unless unavailable. “The obligation to exhaust ‘available’ remedies
13 persists as long as some remedy remains ‘available.’ Once that is no longer the case, then there
14 are no ‘remedies … available,’ and the prisoner need not further pursue the grievance.” Brown v.
15 Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532
16 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)).
17 This statutory exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, Porter
18 v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (quotation marks omitted), regardless of the relief sought by
19 the prisoner or the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. at 741, and
20 unexhausted claims may not be brought to court, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007) (citing
21 Porter, 534 U.S. at 524).
22 The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of
23 raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d
24 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). “In the rare event that a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of
25 the complaint, a defendant may move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Albino, 747 F.3d at
26
1 Concurrently with their motion for summary judgment, Defendants served Plaintiff with the requisite notice of the
27 requirements for opposing the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland,
154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998).
28
1 1166. Otherwise, the defendants must produce evidence proving the failure to exhaust, and they
2 are entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56 only if the undisputed evidence, viewed in the
3 light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows he failed to exhaust. Id.
4 B. Summary Judgment Standard
5 Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment
6 if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
7 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted); Albino,
8 747 F.3d at 1166; Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each
9 party’s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1)
10 citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions,
11 documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
12 presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible
13 evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may
14 consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, although it is not required to do
15 so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031
16 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).
17 The defendants bear the burden of proof in moving for summary judgment for failure to
18 exhaust, Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166, and they must “prove that there was an available
19 administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy,” id. at 1172.
20 If the defendants carry their burden, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff “to come
21 forward with evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that made the
22 existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. “If
23 the undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner shows a failure to
24 exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56.” Id. at 1166. However,
25 “[i]f material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied, and the district judge rather
26 than a jury should determine the facts.” Id.
27 ///
28 ///
1 III.
2 DISCUSSION
3 A. Description of CDCR’s Administrative Remedy Process
4 Since August 1, 2008, health care grievances involving medical services for incarcerated
5 persons within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
6 (CDCR) have been processed by California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS).
7 (Declaration of K. Martin (Martin Decl.), ¶ 1.) The Health Care Correspondence and Appeals
8 Branch (HCCAB) is the branch responsible for statewide oversight of health care grievances
9 submitted by the incarcerated adult population. (Martin Decl., ¶ 2.)
10 Under California Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 3999.226 and 3999.227(a),
11 incarcerated persons may grieve issues regarding health care policies, decisions, actions,
12 conditions, or omissions using a CDCR 602 HC, Health Care Grievance form. (Martin Decl., ¶
13 3.) Once submitted, health care grievances are subject to two levels of review: health care
14 grievances are processed at the institutional level by Health Care Grievance Offices at each
15 institution and health care grievance appeals are processed at the headquarters level by the
16 HCCAB, if requested by the incarcerated person. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3999.226(a)(1)
17 (2019). (Id.) Health care grievances are subject to a headquarters disposition before
18 administrative remedies are deemed exhausted. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3999.226(g) (2019).
19 (Id.) Health care grievances are tracked and maintained in an electronic database known as the
20 Health Care Appeals and Risk Tracking System (HCARTS). (Martin Decl., ¶ 4.)
21 B. Allegations of Complaint
22 Since 2003, Plaintiff has experienced pain in both of his knees and in his lower back.
23 In 2003, Plaintiff was given a cane and knee brace.
24 In 2022, Plaintiff transferred to North Kern State Prison (NKSP). After medical
25 assessment, it was determined that Plaintiff’s cane and knee brace should be permanent
26 accommodations, and he should be provided a mobility impaired vest.
27 On June 22, 2022, Dr. Odeluga instructed A-Yard correctional staff to confiscate
28 Plaintiff’s medical supplies. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Odeluga, Dr. Kaleka, and Dr. Shittu were
1 all aware of his underlying medical condition prior to Dr. Odeluga instructing the confiscation of
2 his medical devices.
3 C. Statement of Undisputed Facts2,3
4 1. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Marlon Edwards was incarcerated at NKSP. (ECF
5 No. 8 (Compl.) at 5.)4
6 2. At all relevant times, Defendants Kaleka, Odeluga, and Shittu were doctors at
7 NKSP. (Compl. at 5-6.)
8 3. Plaintiff alleges he has a history of pain in both of his knees and lower back pain.
9 (Compl. at 5.)
10 4. Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in
11 2003, he was given a cane and knee brace. (Compl. at 5.)
12 5. Plaintiff alleges that once he arrived to NKSP in 2022, his medical records and
13 physical conditions were assessed. (Compl. at 5.)
14 6. After review, it was assessed that Plaintiff’s need for a cane should be placed on
15 permanent, that a knee brace should be continually supplied permanently; and that a mobility
16 impaired vest should be continually provided to Plaintiff. (Compl. at 5.)
17 7. On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Odeluga instructed A-Yard correctional
18 staff to confiscate his medical supplies. (Compl. at 5.)
19 8. Plaintiff alleges all Defendants were responsible for and aware of his underlying
20 health conditions before Dr. Odeluga confiscated his medical supplies. (Compl. at 6.)
21 9. Plaintiff alleges he exhausted his administrative remedies against all Defendants.
22
23 2 Hereinafter referred to as “UF.”
24 3 Plaintiff did not file an opposition and did not admit or deny the facts set forth by Defendants as undisputed. Local
Rule 56-260(b). Therefore, Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts is accepted except where brought into dispute
25 by Plaintiff’s verified complaint. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004) (verified complaint may be used
as an opposing affidavit if it is based on pleader’s personal knowledge of specific facts which are admissible in
evidence). A verified opposition to a motion for summary judgment may also be considered as an opposing affidavit
26
for purposes of the summary judgment rule if it is based on facts within the pleader’s personal knowledge. Johnson
v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399-1400 (9th Cir. 1998). However, because plaintiff’s opposition was not verified, it
27
cannot be treated as an opposing affidavit. Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 948, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2006).
28 4 All pagination references are based on the ECF numbering.
1 (Compl. at 5-6.)
2 10. Since August 1, 2008, health care grievances involving medical, dental, and
3 mental health services for incarcerated persons within the jurisdiction of the California
4 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) have been processed by California
5 Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS), under the Office of the Federal Receiver appointed
6 in the class action litigation regarding prison health care, Plata v. Newsom, U.S. District Court for
7 the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:01-cv-01351. (Declaration of K. Martin
8 (Martin Decl.), ¶ 1.)
9 11. K. Martin is the Associate Director of the Health Care Correspondence and
10 Appeals Branch (HCCAB), which is the branch responsible for statewide oversight of health care
11 grievances submitted by the incarcerated adult population. (Martin Decl., ¶ 2.)
12 12. The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, §§ 3999.225 – 3999.237
13 governs the health care grievance process. Under these regulations, incarcerated persons may
14 grieve issues regarding health care policies, decisions, actions, conditions, or omissions using a
15 CDCR 602 HC, Health Care Grievance form. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3999.226, 3999.227(a)
16 (2019). Health care grievances are subject to two levels of review: health care grievances are
17 processed at the institutional level by Health Care Grievance Offices at each institution and health
18 care grievance appeals are processed at the headquarters level by the HCCAB, if requested by the
19 incarcerated person. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3999.226(a)(1) (2019). Health care grievances are
20 subject to a headquarters disposition before administrative remedies are deemed exhausted. Cal.
21 Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3999.226(g) (2019). (Martin Decl., ¶ 3.)
22 13. Health care grievances are tracked and maintained in an electronic database known
23 as the Health Care Appeals and Risk Tracking System (HCARTS). The HCARTS is kept as a
24 regularly conducted activity and the computer entries are made at or near the time of the
25 occurrence by the employee who is processing the health care grievance. K. Martin is familiar
26 with the HCARTS and can verify the status of an incarcerated person’s health care grievance as
27 well as their health care grievance history with CCHCS. (Martin Decl., ¶ 4.)
28 14. Plaintiff filed the relevant health care grievance, assigned tracking number NKSP
1 HC 22000950, and NKSP’s Health Care Grievance Office received it for institutional level
2 review on June 28, 2022. (Martin Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B at 5.)
3 15. The grievance was accepted for processing at the institutional level and on July 8,
4 2022, Plaintiff was interviewed by C. Williams, Health Care Appeals Registered Nurse regarding
5 the grievance. (Martin Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. C.)
6 16. Plaintiff was issued an institutional-level response dated August 24, 2022, with a
7 disposition of no intervention. (Martin Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B at 9-10.)
8 17. Plaintiff submitted his grievance for headquarters-level review, and it was
9 received on October 11, 2022. (Martin Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B at 6.)
10 18. Plaintiff was issued a headquarters-level response dated December 29, 2022,
11 with a disposition of no intervention. (Martin Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B at 1-3.)
12 19. The Headquarters-Level Response exhausted Plaintiff’s administrative remedies
13 as to his issues contained within the grievance. (Martin Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B at 1-3.)
14 D. Defendants’ Motion
15 Defendants Kaleka and Shittu argue that Plaintiff did not exhaust the administrative
16 remedies for the claims against them. More specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiff only
17 mentions Defendant Odeluga in his original health care grievance submitted for institutional-level
18 review. He then improperly added Dr. Shittu at the headquarters level, and he failed to submit a
19 grievance naming Dr. Kaleka.
20 Although Plaintiff did not file an opposition, in the operative complaint, Plaintiff claims
21 that he grieved against all three Defendants and attaches a health care grievance as “Exhibit E”
22 naming all three Defendants. (Compl. at 2, 5-6.)
23 As an initial matter, it is undisputed that an administrative grievance process was available
24 to Plaintiff at NKSP, and he used it by submitting a grievance dated June 22, 2022. (UF 14.)
25 1. Defendant Shittu
26 Grievance No. NKSP HC 22000950, was received at the institutional level on
27 June 28, 2022. (UF 14.) Therein, Plaintiff grieved as follows:
28
1 On 6-22-22, Chief CME, Dr. Odeluga directed A-y[a]rd correctional staff to confiscate
my ADA medical supplies-which are documented as permanent, as well as my mobility
2
impaired disability vest. These supplies were given to me based on my medical [and]
physical condition. I have severe arthritis in both knees and lower back which causes
3
numbness down my lower extr[e]mities and pain that causes my left leg to go out totally.
4 My right knee ACL-MCL is completely tore which naturally causes pain and instability.
My cane [and] knee braced needed.
5
(Martin Decl., Ex. B.)
6
It is clear that the sole issue raised in this grievance involved Dr. Odeluga’s direction to
7
custody staff to confiscate Plaintiff’s medical supplies. Dr. Shittu is not named in the grievance
8
and there are no facts that would the prison (or Dr. Shittu) on notice of any alleged wrongdoing.
9
The appeal was denied at the institutional level on August 24, 2022, with a disposition of no
10
intervention. (UF 16.)
11
Plaintiff submitted the grievance appeal for headquarters-level review on October 11,
12
2022. (UF 17.) In this grievance appeal, Plaintiff added “there hasn’t been any medical
13
procedures done to help fix the tears in my knees-not by Dr. Odeluga nor Dr. Shittu or any other.”
14
(Martin Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B at 7.) (emphasis added.) An appeal of a healthcare grievance cannot
15
include new issues not discussed in the underlying grievance. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §
16
3999.229(a)(3), 3999.230(i), (j). If an inmate raises new issues on appeal, the HCCAB can, but is
17
not required to, address those issues in the appeal. (Id.) The HCCAB declined to expand the
18
scope of Plaintiff’s grievance appeal and only responded to his initial grievances against Dr.
19
Odeluga. Indeed, the HCCAB response specifically stated:
20
It is not appropriate to expand the health care grievance beyond the initial issue(s). The
21
Health Care Correspondence and Appeals Branch has the discretion whether to address
22 new issues; it has been determined the new issue(s), fix tears in knees, not included in the
originally submitted CDCR 602 HC, Health Care Grievance, will not be addressed at the
23 headquarters’ level per California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3999.230(j).
24 (Martin Decl, Ex. B.) (emphasis in original.)
25 The law is clearly established that the requirements of the prison administrative system
26 determine proper exhaustion. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3999.230(i), (j); Smith v. Mendoza, No.
27 19-03750 BLF (PR), 2021 WL 930706, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021) (finding that plaintiff did
28 not exhaust his claims as to Defendants who were mentioned in an “upper-level appeal,” but were
1 not named in the original CDCR 602 Form.); Brannon v. Covarrubias, No. 22-16728, 2024 WL
2 1253788, at *2 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2024) (affirming district court decision that plaintiff did not
3 exhaust claim against nurse that he only raised in the appeal to the headquarters-level of review
4 which did not address plaintiff's new claim.); Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. Because Plaintiff
5 improperly raised his allegations related to Dr. Shittu for the first time at the appellate level, he
6 did not exhaust the administrative remedies as to those additional allegations. Accordingly, the
7 Court finds that grievance NKSP HC 22000950 failed to exhaust Plaintiff’s administrative
8 remedies as to Defendant Dr. Shittu.
9 2. Defendant Kaleka
10 Defendant has submitted evidence that neither the grievance received at the institutional
11 level nor at the headquarters level names Dr. Kaleka. (Martin Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.)
12 In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleges that filed a grievance against Dr. Kaleka to the
13 headquarters level and submits “Exhibit E” a Health Care Grievance Attachment in support of his
14 argument which names as three Defendants. (Compl. at 6, 21.) However, K. Martin submits the
15 packet of grievance NKSP HC 22000950, which does not include a copy of “Exhibit E”
16 submitted by Plaintiff. (Martin Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.) In addition, there are no indicia the attachment
17 was ever properly submitted or processed by the prison. (Id.) Furthermore, the attachment is not
18 signed or dated by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has not submitted any other evidence, such as a mail
19 log, to demonstrate that it was submitted or processed at NKSP. Nor does Plaintiff provide any
20 other details that he actually submitted this attachment to the headquarters level review.
21 Consequently, the Court finds that this attachment does not create a genuine issue of material fact
22 as to whether Plaintiff submitted the attachment to HCCAB for headquarters level review. See
23 FTC v. Neovi, Inc., 604 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A court] need not find a genuine issue
24 of fact if, in its determination, the particular declaration was uncorroborated and self-serving.”).
25 Indeed, to find otherwise would mean that a prisoner who failed to submit an attachment to a
26 grievance appeal for HCCAB headquarters level review need only complete an attachment after
27 the fact to create a genuine dispute regarding whether he mailed the attachment to HCCAB.
28 Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies as to the claim against Dr.
1 | Kaleka.
2 IV.
3 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly
5 | assign a District Judge to this action.
6 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
7 1. Defendants’ Shittu and Kaleka’s motion for summary judgment be granted; and
8 2. The claims against Shittu and Kaleka be dismissed from the action, without
9 | prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.
10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
11 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
12 | (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file
13 | written objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The
14 | document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
15 || Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified
16 | time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39
17 | (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le
20 | Dated: _January 29, 2026 _ EO
STANLEY A. BOONE
21 United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10