(PC) Madrid v. Anglea ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRO MADRID, Case No. 1:19-cv-01456-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 13 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 14 H. ANGLEA, (Doc. 47) 15 Defendant. 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 18 administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 47.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 19 recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted. 20 I. SUMMARY OF FACTS1 21 Alejandro Madrid initiated this action on October 15, 2019. Pl.’s Compl. (Doc. 1). At all 22 times relevant to this case, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Sierra Conservation Center (SCC). Pl.’s 23 First Am. Compl. (Doc. 11). 24 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges he requested permission for visitation by his wife on 25 September 4, 2018. Id. 3. He further alleges H. Anglea, the warden of SCC, denied the visitation 26 27 1 Defendant filed his motion for summary judgment on August 2, 2021. (Doc. 47.) Despite receiving notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 47-1), to date, Plaintiff has failed to file an 1 request due to disqualifying convictions on October 8, 2018. Id. 2 On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance regarding the denial of 3 visitation. Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF”) ¶ 5 (Doc. 47-2 at 2); Williams Decl. Ex. 4 4 (Doc. 47-4 at 35-38). Prison officials cancelled the grievance at the first level of review because 5 it was untimely. Def.’s SUF ¶ 6. 6 Plaintiff appealed the cancellation on December 13, 2018. Id. ¶ 5; Williams Decl. Ex. 5 7 (Doc. 47-4 at 46-49). Prison officials rejected the appeal at the second level of review because it 8 was missing a signature, date, and necessary supporting documents, and it included unauthorized 9 lined paper. Def.’s SUF ¶ 7. A rejection notice instructed Plaintiff to “take the corrective action 10 necessary and resubmit the appeal.” Williams Decl. Ex. 5 (Doc. 47-4 at 58). Plaintiff resubmitted 11 the appeal, but prison officials again rejected it for the same reasons as before. See Def.’s SUF ¶ 12 7. The rejection notice against instructed Plaintiff to take corrective action and resubmit the 13 appeal. Williams Decl. Ex. 5 (Doc. 47-4 at 50). 14 Plaintiff, however, did not resubmit the appeal for second-level review. Def.’s SUF ¶ 10. 15 Instead, he submitted the appeal to the third level of review. See Def.’s SUF ¶ 8. The California 16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Appeals rejected the third-level appeal on 17 February 12, 2019, because Plaintiff had improperly bypassed the second level of review. Id.; 18 Moseley Decl. Ex. 2 (Doc. 47-5 at 8). 19 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 20 A. Summary Judgment 21 Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party “shows that there is no genuine 22 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party “initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine 24 issue of material fact.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 25 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The moving party may accomplish this by 26 “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, 27 electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . ., admissions, 1 absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible 2 evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A),(B). When the non-moving party bears 3 the burden of proof at trial, “the moving party need only prove that there is an absence of 4 evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” Oracle Corp., 627 F.3d at 387 (citing Celotex, 5 477 U.S. at 325); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). 6 Summary judgment should be entered against a party who fails to make a showing 7 sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that 8 party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. “[A] complete failure of 9 proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other 10 facts immaterial.” Id. at 322–23. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, 11 “so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for the entry of 12 summary judgment . . . is satisfied.” Id. at 323. 13 B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 14 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect 15 to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in 16 any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available 17 are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and 18 “unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). 19 Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the 20 applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal 21 court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion requirement applies to all 22 inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the 23 relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 24 731, 741 (2001). 25 The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, which the 26 defendant must plead and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. The defendant bears the burden of 27 producing evidence that proves a failure to exhaust; and, summary judgment is appropriate only if 1 failed to exhaust. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). On a motion for summary 2 judgment, the defendant must prove (1) the existence of an available administrative remedy and 3 (2) that Plaintiff failed to exhaust that remedy. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 4 2015) (citations omitted). If the defendant meets this burden, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff, 5 who must show that there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally 6 available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. . .” Id. If the plaintiff fails to 7 meet this burden, the court must dismiss the unexhausted claims or action without prejudice. See 8 Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175 (9th Cir. 2005). 9 C. CDCR Grievance Process 10 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative 11 grievance system for prisoners to appeal a policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the 12 department or staff if it has an adverse effect on prisoner health, safety, or welfare. Cal. Code 13 Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1(a) (2018), 3999.226(a). Compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires 14 California-state prisoners to utilize CDCR’s grievance process to exhaust their claims prior to 15 filing suit in court. See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Woodford, 16 548 U.S. at 85-86. Administrative appeals are generally subject to two to three levels of review 17 before the remedy is deemed exhausted. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1(b) (2018), 18 3084.7(d)(3) (2018), 3999.226(g), 3999.230(h); see also Sapp, 623 F.3d at 818. 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires “proper exhaustion,” which means that “the 21 prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable 22 procedural rules . . . as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88, 23 93. The rules that must be followed, in other words, “are defined not by the PLRA, but by the 24 prison grievance process itself.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. “The level of detail necessary in a 25 grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to system . . ., but it is 26 the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” 27 Id. 1 through three levels of review in order to exhaust administrative remedies. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 15, §§ 3084.1(b) (2018), 3084.7(d)(3) (2018). A prisoner was required to submit the appeal 3 within 30 days of the event or decision of which the prisoner complained. Id. § 3084.8(b) (2018). 4 Regulations further provided that an “appeal may be cancelled” if “[t]ime limits for 5 submitting the appeal are exceeded.” Id. § 3084.6(c)(4) (2018.) The regulations provided that an 6 “appeal may be rejected” if the “inmate . . . has not provided a signature and/or date on the appeal 7 forms in the designated signature/date blocks,” if “[t]he appeal is missing necessary supporting 8 documents,” or if the “inmate . . . has . . . submitt[ed] an appeal at the third level prior to lower 9 level review.” Id. § 3084.6(b)(7),(13),(15) (2018). A cancellation or rejection (as opposed to a 10 denial on the merits) “does not exhaust administrative remedies.” Id. § 3084.1(b) (2018). 11 Plaintiff alleges Defendant denied his visitation request on October 8, 2018. Pl.’s First 12 Am. Compl. 3. Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the denial on November 30, 2018. Def.’s SUF 13 ¶ 5; Williams Decl. Ex. 4 (Doc. 47-4 at 35-38). Prison officials cancelled the grievance at the first 14 level of review because it was filed more than 30 days after the visitation denial. Def.’s SUF ¶ 6; 15 Williams Decl. Ex. 4 (Doc. 47-4 at 43). Pursuant to California Code of Regulations sections 16 3084.6(c)(4) and 3084.8(b), the cancellation was proper. See also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 17 (“[p]roper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines”). 18 Plaintiff appealed the cancellation on December 13, 2018, to explain the time delay. 19 Williams Decl. Ex. 5 (Doc. 47-4 at 46-49). Prison officials rejected the appeal because (1) it was 20 missing necessary supporting documents, (2) it was missing Plaintiff’s signature and date in a 21 designated signature-date block on the appeal form, and (3) it included lined paper. Def.’s SUF ¶ 22 7; Williams Decl. Ex. 5 (Doc. 47-4 at 58). Pursuant to California Code of Regulations sections 23 3084(h), 3084.2(b)(1), and 3084.6(b)(7) and (13), the rejection was proper. See also Sapp, 623 24 F.3d at 826 (rejection of appeal was proper because inmate failed to attach necessary supporting 25 documents). 26 Plaintiff resubmitted the rejected appeal. Williams Decl. ¶ 11 (Doc. 47-4 at 3-4). Prison 27 officials rejected the appeal a second time because it was again missing a signature and date and 1 rejection was proper. The rejection notice instructed Plaintiff to “take corrective action necessary 2 and resubmit the appeal.” Williams Decl. Ex. 5 (Doc. 47-4 at 49). 3 However, Plaintiff did not resubmit the appeal for intermediate-level review. Def.’s SUF ¶ 4 10. Instead, he submitted his appeal directly to the third level of review. See id. ¶ 8. The CDCR 5 Office of Appeals rejected the appeal because Plaintiff had bypassed the lower level of review. 6 Id.; Moseley Decl. Ex. 2 (Doc. 47-5 at 8). Pursuant to California Code of Regulations section 7 3084.6(b)(15), this rejection was proper. 8 The Supreme Court has explicitly held “that the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires 9 proper exhaustion.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93. To properly exhaust, prisoners must comply with 10 the prison’s grievance procedures. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. That is, “the prison’s requirements . . . 11 define . . . proper exhaustion.” Id. As described above, Plaintiff did not comply with the CDCR’s 12 procedures when filing his administrative grievances concerning the denial of visitation rights. 13 Therefore, he did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies. 14 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 15 For the reasons above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion for summary 16 judgment (Doc. 47) be GRANTED. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to 17 the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 18 21 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 19 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 20 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 21 may result in waiver of her rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 22 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: September 30, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27