(PC) Matlock v. Kern County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD A. MATLOCK, Case No. 1:19-cv-01368-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 13 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 14 DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., REMEDIES AND DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 54) 16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Richard A. Matlock was a pretrial federal detainee proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Donny Youngblood 20 and Officer Woosley have filed a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) based on Plaintiff’s 21 failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint. (Doc. 54). Plaintiff failed 22 to file a response in opposition despite ample opportunity to do so.1 For the following reasons, the 23 Court recommends that summary judgment based on non-exhaustion be granted in Defendants’ 24 favor and the case dismissed without prejudice. 25 26 1 Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty-day extension of time to respond to Defendants’ MSJ, which 27 the Court granted. (Docs. 56, 57.) After Plaintiff failed to file a response, the Court issued an order to show cause why the Court should not deem Defendants’ MSJ as unopposed and consider the motion without input from Plaintiff. (Doc. 60.) Plaintiff did not file a response to either the order to show cause or 1 2 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 3 A. Summary Judgment 4 Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party “shows that there is no genuine 5 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue 7 of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The moving party may 8 accomplish this by presenting evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving 9 party’s case. Id. Alternatively, the movant can demonstrate that the non-moving party cannot 10 produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim that must be proven at trial. Id.; 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the 12 non-moving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 13 322–23. 14 If the moving party meets this initial showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party 15 to establish “specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 16 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). The non-moving party cannot simply rely on the pleadings and 17 conclusory allegations in an affidavit. Lujan v. Nat’1 Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990); 18 see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational 19 trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. 20 Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). However, when deciding a motion 21 for summary judgment, the court must view any inferences drawn from the underlying facts in a 22 light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. 23 The Ninth Circuit has “held consistently that courts should construe liberally motion 24 papers and pleadings filed by pro se inmates and should avoid applying summary judgment rules 25 strictly.” Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Thomas v. Ponder, 611 26 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010)). While prisoners are relieved from strict compliance, they still 27 must “identify or submit some competent evidence” to support their claims. Id. Plaintiff’s 1 personal knowledge and specific facts admissible in evidence. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 2 1132 n.14 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 3 B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 4 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought 5 with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a 6 prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 7 remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative 8 remedies is mandatory, and “unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 9 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in 10 accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to 11 bringing suit in federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion 12 requirement applies to all inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 13 (2002), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, 14 Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 15 The PLRA requires “proper exhaustion,” which means that “the prisoner must complete 16 the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including 17 deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88, 93. The 18 rules that must be followed, in other words, “are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison 19 grievance process itself.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. “The level of detail necessary in a grievance to 20 comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to system . . . , but it is the prison’s 21 requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Id. The 22 exhaustion requirement allows prison officials to have an opportunity to resolve disputes before 23 the filing of a court action against them. Id. at 204. 24 The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that the 25 defendant must plead and prove. Id. at 204, 216. The defendant bears the burden of producing 26 evidence that proves a failure to exhaust; summary judgment is appropriate only if the 27 undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows the plaintiff failed 1 judgment, the defendant bears the initial burden of proving (1) the existence of an available 2 administrative remedy, and (2) the plaintiff failed to exhaust that remedy. Id. at 1172. If the 3 defendant makes this showing, the burden shifts to the prisoner to present evidence showing 4 “that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available 5 administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. (citation omitted). A prisoner may 6 not file a complaint raising non-exhausted claims. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th 7 Cir. 2010). 8 The ultimate burden of proof, however, remains with the defendant. Albino, 747 F.3d at 9 1172. “If a motion for summary judgment is denied, disputed factual questions relevant to 10 exhaustion should be decided by the judge.” Id. at 1170. If the court finds that remedies were not 11 available, the prisoner exhausted available remedies, or the failure to exhaust available remedies 12 should be excused, the case proceeds to the merits. Id. at 1131. 13 II. UNDERLYING FACTS 14 A. Plaintiff’s Allegations 15 On January 19, 2017, Plaintiff was arrested by the Department of Homeland Security for 16 possession and distribution of materials involving sexual exploitation of minors. He was first 17 transported to Fresno County Jail and was, for safety reasons, placed in a “drop-out” pod for a 18 week, and then moved to housing for accused sex offenders apart from inmates in general 19 population. 20 On September 27, 2017, Plaintiff was transported to the Lerdo Pretrial Facility in 21 Bakersfield and held in segregation for one night. He was then moved to the Lerdo Maximum- 22 Medium Facility. Staff listed his charges as “uscsexexploit,” an abbreviation for United States 23 Code Sexual Exploitation of a minor. 24 On October 1, 2017, he reported to MXD328 (pod 3, bed 28) as instructed by staff, where 25 he was the only federal inmate, as designated by the color (blue) of his uniform. He was 26 threatened by five men because he was a sex offender. Plaintiff informed a deputy, and he was 27 re-assigned and escorted to MXD615. In that unit, one other person was a federal inmate and 1 member approached Plaintiff from behind and sliced his throat with a razor. As the gang member 2 walked away, he allegedly referenced Plaintiff’s status as a sex offender. Plaintiff was taken to 3 the medical clinic, where he received fifteen stitches to close the wound. 4 After federal sentencing, Plaintiff left the facility on December 27, 2017. 5 B. Statement of Undisputed Facts 6 In accordance with Local Rule 260(a), Defendants submitted a statement of undisputed 7 facts in support of their MSJ. (Doc. 54-2.) Plaintiff failed to file a response in opposition to 8 Defendants’ motion; reproduce Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts (“SUF”) and deny 9 those that are disputed; or file a statement of disputed facts. See L.R. 260(b); see also Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 56(c). Because Plaintiff failed to dispute Defendants’ assertions of fact, the Court 11 considers the Defendants’ version of the facts undisputed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). 12 At the time of the incident, KCSO had a grievance policy and a grievance tracking policy 13 in place. Plaintiff received and signed an acknowledgment regarding KCSO’s grievance policy. 14 The grievance tracking system indicates that Plaintiff did not submit a grievance in this matter. 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 In support of the MSJ, Defendants submit the declarations of Sgt. Justin Weigand, whose 17 duties include supervision and oversight of the Compliance Section of KCSO’s Detentions 18 Bureau. The Compliance Section is responsible for policy, incident reviews, performance audits, 19 and operation of the bureau’s grievance tracking system. (Doc. 54-2 at ¶¶ 2, 3.) According to 20 Sgt. Weigand, the Detention Bureau has a policy on inmate grievances and a policy on an inmate 21 grievance tracking system. Therefore, Defendants have met their burden to demonstrate that 22 administrative remedies were available at KCSO. 23 Sgt. Weigand further indicates that he reviewed all grievance records archived by the 24 Compliance Section, and he determined that Plaintiff never filed a grievance. Thus, Defendants 25 have met their initial burden to prove that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 26 The burden then shifts to Plaintiff show that the administrative remedies were not 27 available to him. On the second page of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff check-marked 1 | or grievance concerning all of the facts in the complaint; and the process was not completed. 2 | (Doc. 17 at 2.) Plaintiff explained, “There is no administrative remedy available in the matter of 3 | this Civil Rights lawsuit.” Ud.) However, these allegations, without any evidence to rebut the 4 | declaration of Sgt. Weigand, do not raise an issue of fact. More significantly, Plaintiff's failure to 5 | file a response renders Defendants’ factual assertions and legal arguments unopposed. 6 Defendants have met their burden to prove the existence of available administrative 7 || remedies and the failure of Plaintiff to exhaust those remedies, and they are entitled to summary 8 | judgment. 9 | IV. CONCLUSION 10 Defendants have demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be tried 11 | and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. The Court GRANT Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to 14 exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 54); 15 2. The case be dismissed without prejudice; and 16 3, The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 17 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 || Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 19 | (14) days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file 20 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 21 || captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 22 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 23 | □□ appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 24 | 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 76 Dated: _ April 10, 2023 | br Pr 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28