(PC) Melendez v. Diaz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN MELENDEZ, et al., No. 1:20-cv-01393-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS 14 WARDEN ROSEMARY NDOH, JOHN MELENDEZ, JUSTICE DILLON PAJARILLO, JOSE CANALES, JR., PEDRO 15 Defendant. CASTRO, EMERSON GAITAN, CARLOS ESPINOZA, ERIC HERNANDEZ, AND 16 DANIEL GARCIA WITHOUT PREJUDICE 17 (ECF Nos. 37, 51) 18 19 On April 24, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations to 20 dismiss Plaintiffs John Melendez, Justice Dillon Pajarillo, Jose Canales, Jr., Pedro Castro, 21 Emerson Gaitan, Carlos Espinoza, Eric Hernandez, and Daniel Garcia for failure to exhaust 22 administrative remedies. (ECF No. 51.) The Court served the findings and recommendations on 23 Plaintiffs and provided fourteen (14) days for the Plaintiffs’ to file objections thereto. (Id.) On 24 May 7, 2023, Plaintiffs timely filed objections. (ECF No. 52.) On May 19, 2023, Defendants 25 replied. (ECF No. 57.) 26 In their objections, Plaintiffs argue they should not be dismissed from this case merely 27 because they “failed to engage in or complete a futile three-tier ‘appeals’ process that could not 1 the burden of proof prior to demonstrate “the prisoner[s] did not exhaust a remedy that was 2 available to the inmate.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs argue that because the “‘exhaustion requirement 3 hinges on the availab[ility] of relief,’” Plaintiffs should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 4 non-existent administrative remedies. (Id.) Plaintiffs, essentially, argue that because Defendant 5 has failed to make available the relief they seek, Defendant has failed to provide any remedy. 6 Defendant argues “it is undisputed that Plaintiffs . . . failed to exhaust available 7 administrative remedies for their claims.” (ECF No. 57.) Defendant argues “the administrative 8 grievance process was capable of providing the Non-Moving Plaintiffs with some sort of relief, 9 even if not the specific monetary relief they demanded.” (Id.) Thus, Defendant argues, Plaintiffs’ 10 objections are “immaterial.” (Id.) 11 Defendants are correct. (ECF No. 51 at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Washington 12 Mutual Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Summary judgment is 13 appropriate where there is ‘no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 14 judgment as a matter of law.’”).) Plaintiffs state they forwent the requisite administrative 15 procedure because it could not provide monetary relief; however, the case law does not require 16 the type of relief sought be available—only that some relief is available and exhausted. See 42 17 U.S.C. § 1997(e) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions . . . by a prisoner 18 confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 19 available are exhausted.”). Exhaustion requires Plaintiffs to pursue even those remedies that may 20 not fully address the harm they endured. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (“an inmate 21 seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of 22 addressing the inmate’s complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not 23 make specific provision for monetary relief.”) Therefore, Plaintiffs’ objections are unpersuasive. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiffs’ objections, the Court 3 | concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 | Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED: 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2023 (ECF No. 51), are 6 ADOPTED in full; 7 2. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37); 8 3. Plaintiffs John Melendez, Justice Dillon Pajarillo, Jose Canales, Jr., Pedro Castro, 9 Emerson Gaitan, Carlos Espinoza, Eric Hernandez, and Daniel Garcia are 10 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the dismissed plaintiffs from this case; and 12 5. This action shall proceed on claims by remaining Plaintiffs Freddy Anthony Mendoza 13 and Salvador Salazar. 14 15 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: _ September 4, 2023 ig UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28