Cortinas v. Gipson et al

Filing 54

ORDER Regarding 51 Findings and Recommendations on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER Referring Matter Back to Magistrate Judge for Further Proceedings, re 28 , 45 , 51 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/12/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

12
13
14

15

Plaintiff,
v.
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01229-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON DEFENDANTS‟
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ORDER REFERRING MATTER BACK TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS
[ECF Nos. 28, 45, 51]

Plaintiff Larry William Cortinas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

20

recommending that Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment relating to exhaustion of the

21

administrative remedies be granted. The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that

22

objections were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on November 19, 2014. Those

23

objections again emphasized Plaintiff‟s factual allegation that the purported cancellation of his

24

administrative appeal for failure to cooperate did not actually take place.

25

The Court has conducted a de novo review of Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment,

26

Plaintiff‟s opposition, Defendants‟ reply, and Plaintiff‟s objections, and finds that a disputed issue of

27

material fact exists, precluding summary judgment as to exhaustion.

28
1

Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the

1
2

administrative remedies because Plaintiff‟s inmate appeal number CSPC-5-12-1100 was rejected at

3

the second level of review for lack of cooperation, namely, Plaintiff failed to participate in the

4

interview process, and the appeal to the third level of review was cancelled and rejected. (ECF Nos.

5

28, 45.)
However, in response, Plaintiff disputes this fact (by way of verified opposition) and contends

6
7

that he did not refuse to be interviewed and indeed no one attempted to interview him relating to the

8

appeal. (ECF No. 39, Opp‟n at pp 2-4; Ex. A.)1 Defendants did not address Plaintiff‟s argument in

9

their motion for summary judgment or reply to Plaintiff‟s opposition. Consequently, a dispute remains

10

as to whether Plaintiff‟s appeal was improperly screened and cancelled at the second level of review.

11

See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (administrative remedies are effectively

12

unavailable where an inmate attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies but is “thwarted by

13

improper screening.”); see also Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166, 1176 (2014) (“Failure to exhaust

14

under the PLRA is „an affirmative defense the defendant must plead and prove.‟”) (quoting Jones v.

15

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)). Because a disputed issue of fact exists as to exhaustion, the Court

16

must deny Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169.
Accordingly, the matter shall be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

17
18

on the issue of exhaustion in accordance with Albino. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-1171 (“If a motion for

19

summary judgment is denied, disputed factual questions relevant to exhaustion should be decided by

20

the judge, in the same manner a judge rather than a jury decides disputed factual questions relevant to

21

jurisdiction and venue.”) (citations omitted).

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff further contends that he never received the letter dated July 30, 2012, informing him that his
appeal was cancelled at the second level for failure to cooperate. (ECF No. 53 at pp. 29-30.) Plaintiff
submitted evidence of another appeal where he claims to have purposely allowed to be cancelled for
untimeliness to show the court the “mailed” stamp that in normally imprinted on those notices of
cancellation. (Id. at p. 25-26.)
2

1

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants‟ motion for summary

2

judgment is DENIED. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for a determination on the

3

issue of exhaustion.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: February 12, 2015

7

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3