(PC) Madrid v. Anglea ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRO MADRID, No. 1:19-cv-01456-NONE-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 H. ANGLEA, (Doc. Nos. 47, 52) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Alejandro Madrid is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 2, 2021, defendant Anglea filed a motion for summary judgment on the 21 grounds that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required 22 by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). (Doc. No. 47.) Plaintiff did not file an 23 opposition or a statement of non-opposition within the time provided by Local Rules 230(l), and 24 he did not request an extension of time to file either response. Therefore, the assigned magistrate 25 judge “deem[ed] any opposition waived and accept[ed] [d]efendant’s proffered facts as true,” 26 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and Local Rule 230(l). (Doc. 52 at 1.) 27 On October 1, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 52.) The 1 magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to comply with the procedures of the California 2 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) when filing administrative inmate 3 grievances concerning the claims at issue in this case, and that he therefore failed to “properly 4 exhaust” those claims as required by the PLRA. (Id. at 5-6.)1 The findings and recommendations 5 were served on plaintiff and provided him 21 days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff 6 filed objections on October 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 55.) 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 8 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 9 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 10 proper analysis. 11 The uncontested facts show that on November 30, 2018, plaintiff filed an administrative 12 inmate grievance concerning the alleged denial of visitation rights on October 8, 2018.2 (Doc. 13 No. 52 at 1-2, 5.) Prison officials cancelled that inmate grievance as untimely because it was 14 filed more than 30 days after the denial at issue. (Id. at 2, 5.) 15 The court agrees that this cancellation was proper pursuant to California regulations. (See 16 id. at 5.) Even if the cancellation were improper, as plaintiff contends (Doc. No. 55 at 5), the 17 “cancellation . . . did not render administrative remedies effectively unavailable” because plaintiff 18 was still able to appeal the cancellation. Cortinas v. Portillo, 754 F. App’x 525, 527 (9th Cir. 19 2018) (citation omitted).3 20 The uncontested facts before the court on summary judgment show that plaintiff appealed 21 the cancellation on December 13, 2018, and that prison officials rejected the appeal because it 22 1 Approximately one week after the findings and recommendations issued, plaintiff did file an untimely (and very lengthy) opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 53), to 23 which defendant responded (Doc. No. 54). Even assuming that opposition to be timely, plaintiff 24 does not raise material disputes of fact therein that would change the result reached by the findings and recommendations. 25 2 At the time the pending motion for summary judgment was filed, the only claim remaining in 26 this case was that defendant unconstitutionally denied him visitation by his wife. (See Doc. No. 52 at 1–2.) 27 3 Citation to this unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion is appropriate pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 1 included improper lined paper, and because it was missing necessary supporting documents and a 2 signature and date in a designated space on the inmate appeal form. (Doc. No. 52 at 2, 5.) The 3 rejection notice instructed plaintiff to take corrective action and resubmit the appeal. (Id. at 2.) 4 Plaintiff resubmitted the inmate appeal, but officials rejected it a second time because plaintiff 5 again included improper lined paper and failed to provide a signature and date in a designated 6 space on the inmate appeal form. (Id. at 2, 5.) 7 These grounds for rejection of the grievance were authorized under the applicable 8 California regulations. (See id. at 5-6.) See Johnson v. Patel, No. 2:14-cv-01598-RGK-KK, 2015 9 WL 3866226, at *13 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“[u]nder California regulations, [p]laintiff was only 10 permitted to include the 602 and 602–A forms in his grievances and could not include any 11 attachments” such as “lined paper”). Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to provide a 12 signature and date as directed, and he also concedes that he continued to submit the inmate appeal 13 on lined paper (which included an unnecessary illustration of a calendar), arguing that the 14 prison’s refusal to accept the lined paper was unlawful. (Doc. No. 55 at 6-7, 25, 26, 31.) 15 Therefore, plaintiff cannot show that he reasonably believed administrative remedies were 16 unavailable to him, since he has failed to show that he complied with the prison’s policies as they 17 were explicitly provided to him and that his inmate appeals were nevertheless rejected. See Sapp 18 v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 826 (9th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff “could have no reasonable belief that 19 administrative remedies were effectively unavailable,” when defendant “specifically instructed 20 [him] on how to seek medical care, and on how to appeal any denial of care, but [plaintiff] did not 21 follow those instructions”). 22 Accordingly, 23 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 1, 2021 (Doc. No. 52) are 24 adopted in full; 25 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 47) is granted; 26 3. This case is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 27 administrative remedies prior to filing suit; 1 4. Plaintiff's pending related motions (Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 44) are denied as moot; and, 2 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for 3 purposes of closure and to close this case. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 5 Li. wh F Dated: _ October 27, 2021 Sea 1" S098 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28