Mitchell v. Hopper ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORREY MITCHELL, Case No.: 19-CV-006 JLS (LL) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) OVERRULING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS, (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 LT. G. HOPPER, et al., RECOMMENDATION, AND 15 Defendants. (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT 17 (ECF Nos. 13, 27) 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is Defendants G. Hopper, R. Luna, and A. Daniel’s 21 Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13). Also before the Court is Magistrate Judge 22 Linda Lopez’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the Court grant 23 Defendant’s Motion (“R&R,” ECF No. 27). Plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R (“Objs.,” 24 ECF No. 28), to which Defendants filed a Reply (“Reply,” ECF No. 29). After considering 25 the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections, 26 (2) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and (3) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary 27 Judgement. 28 /// 1 BACKGROUND 2 Magistrate Judge Lopez’s R&R contains an accurate recitation of the relevant factual 3 and procedural history underlying the instant Motion. See R&R at 1–5. This Order 4 incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 5 STANDARD OF REVIEW 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 7 court’s duties regarding a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court 8 “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 9 is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 10 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also 11 United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980). In the absence of a timely 12 objection, however, “the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 13 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory 14 committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); 15 see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district 16 judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 17 objection is made, but not otherwise.”) (emphasis in original). 18 ANALYSIS 19 In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to 20 exhaust his administrative remedies. See generally Mot. Magistrate Judge Lopez agreed, 21 finding that Plaintiff “did not submit [his] Appeal . . . or any grievance regarding his claims 22 against Defendants in this action to a Third Level of Review prior to filing this action.” 23 R&R at 8. As Judge Lopez noted, “Plaintiff d[id] not contest” that he did not submit his 24 grievance to the Third Level. Id. Plaintiff instead argued in his Opposition to Defendants’ 25 Motion for Summary Judgment that he was not required to submit his appeal to the Third 26 Level of Review. Id. (quoting ECF No. 15 at 7, 9). Judge Lopez rejected Plaintiff’s 27 arguments. First, Judge Lopez concluded that submitting a grievance to the Third Level 28 was required despite the fact monetary compensation is outside the scope of the grievance 1 process. R&R 8–9. Second, Judge Lopez concluded that the facts in the record and 2 applicable case law did not support Plaintiff’s assertion that he was satisfied with the 3 Second Level result and thus did not have to submit his grievance to the Third Level. R&R 4 9–12. 5 Plaintiff makes two objections to Judge Lopez’s findings. First, Plaintiff contends 6 that on the merits of his First Amendment retaliation claim, there are genuine disputes of 7 material facts making summary judgment inappropriate. Objs. 1–3. But Judge Lopez did 8 not reach the merits in granting summary judgment because the record showed Plaintiff 9 did not exhaust his administrative remedies. See generally R&R. The Court cannot reach 10 the merits without first concluding Plaintiff satisfies this threshold issue. Thus, the Court 11 OVERRULES Plaintiff’s first objection. 12 Second, Plaintiff’s objects to Judge Lopez’s finding that Plaintiff did not exhaust his 13 administrative remedies. Objs. 3–5. Plaintiff contends that Judge Lopez’s finding that he 14 was unsatisfied with the Second Level Review is incorrect. Id. Plaintiff contends that he 15 was dissatisfied with the result of the First Level of Review because he had not reviewed 16 the pertinent documents. Id. at 4. After he reviewed the documents, he was satisfied with 17 the result of the Second Level Appeal because his concern that prison officials were trying 18 to cover up their misconduct was “no longer an issue as it was at the First Level.” Id. 19 Plaintiff asserts he was also satisfied because he received the requested investigation into 20 staff misconduct at the Second Level. Id. 21 Despite Plaintiff’s contentions that he was satisfied with the Second Level of 22 Review, the Court must agree with Magistrate Judge Lopez’s conclusion that this is not 23 sufficient to excuse his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. See R&R at 24 9. Although Plaintiff was able to review the documents and an investigation was 25 conducted, he was denied his requested relief for monetary damages and for a finding of 26 misconduct against Defendants—thus, Plaintiff did not receive a favorable ruling 27 concerning these forms and relief. See id. at 10. Further, after this ruling, Plaintiff was 28 advised that to exhaust his administrative remedies, he must submit his complaints to the 1 || Third Level of Review. /d. at 11. Plaintiff's assertion that he was still satisfied despite 2 || being denied this relief does not excuse his failure to appeal those ruling to the Third Level. 3 || See id. at 10 (citing Cunningham v. Ramos, No. C 11-0368 RS PR, 2011 WL 3419503, at 4 ||*4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011) (“Mere contention of satisfaction is not sufficient.”)). The 5 || Court therefore OVERRULES Plaintiffs second objection. 6 In conclusion, after de novo review, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections. 7 || Having concluded that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative, the Court ADOPTS 8 R&R in its entirety. 9 CONCLUSION 10 Based on the foregoing, the Court: 11 1. OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 28); 12 2. ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 27); and 13 3. GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement on Plaintiffs 14 || claims (ECF No. 13). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close the file. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 25, 2020 . tt 17 jen Janis L. Sammartino 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28