Pappas v. North Kern State Prison et al
Filing
46
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT LOPEZS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 34 FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST REMEDIES BE GRANTED signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/29/2015. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 2/1/2016. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG-PC
NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT
LOPEZ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
REMEDIES BE GRANTED
(ECF No. 34)
vs.
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
16
17
18
19
20
21
I.
BACKGROUND
22
Nicholas Christopher Pappas (―Plaintiff‖) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
23
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the
24
Complaint commencing this action on January 27, 2014. (ECF No. 1) This case now proceeds
25
against defendant Correctional Officer J. Lopez, for use of excessive force in violation of the
26
Eighth Amendment.
27
On May 1, 2015, Defendant Lopez filed a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56
28
on the ground that the undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available
1
1
administrative remedies with respect to Plaintiff’s claim against him in this action. (ECF No.
2
34) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion on June 4, 2015 (ECF No. 39), and
3
Defendant filed a reply on June 11, 2015 (ECF No. 42)
4
summary judgment is now before the Court.
5
II.
Defendant Lopez’s motion for
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
6
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and
7
Rehabilitation (CDCR) at North Kern State Prison. Plaintiff claims that on September 20,
8
2013, he asked to be placed in protective custody ―due to being a homosexual.‖ Complaint, p.
9
4; ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that ―instead of following procedures,‖ a C/O harassed Plaintiff,
10
using derogatory terms. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the harassment continued during the morning
11
meal, where Plaintiff was ―in risk of harm or death by prison gangs (due to their prison rule to
12
not allow homosexuals around them in G.P. or S.N.Y.)‖ Id. Plaintiff then asked Defendant
13
C/O Lopez ―to please stop the comments due to the risk he’s putting me in.‖ Id. C/O Lopez
14
allegedly continued with his remarks. When Plaintiff asked him ―what his issue with gays
15
was,‖ Lopez allegedly ―stepped back, shouted, then sprayed me with mace, pulled out his baton
16
and beat me with it, then once on the ground he sprayed me again in the face with mace.‖ Id.
17
This Court1 screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated a claim for excessive
18
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Lopez. (ECF No. 8) The Court
19
dismissed the other defendants and causes of action, including Plaintiff’s challenge to his
20
disciplinary proceeding.
21
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
22
A.
23
Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) provides that
24
A[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. ' 1983], or any
25
other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until
26
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a). Prisoners
Statutory Exhaustion Requirement
27
28
1
Screening was done by the prior judge, Magistrate Judge Gary Austin.
2
1
are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock,
2
549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-
3
1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and
4
regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct.
5
1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life,
6
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 993 (2002).
7
An untimely or otherwise procedurally defective appeal will not satisfy the exhaustion
8
requirement. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2386, 165 L.Ed.2d 368
9
(2006). When an inmate's administrative grievance is improperly rejected on procedural
10
grounds, however, exhaustion may be excused as ―effectively unavailable.‖ Sapp v. Kimbrell,
11
623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224–26 (9th Cir.
12
2010) (warden's mistake rendered prisoner's administrative remedies ―effectively unavailable‖);
13
Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2012) (exhaustion excused where futile);
14
Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 940 (9th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff not required to proceed to third
15
level where appeal granted at second level and no further relief was available).
16
17
B.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
Administrative Grievance System
18
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the State of California provides its
19
prisoners and parolees the right to appeal administratively ―any policy, decision, action,
20
condition, or omission by the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate
21
as having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.‖ Cal.Code Regs.
22
tit. 15 § 3084.1(a). The process is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602. Id. at §
23
3084.2(a).
24
At the time of the events giving rise to the present action, California prisoners were
25
required to submit appeals within thirty calendar days of the event being appealed. Id. at '
26
3084.5. The California prison administrative grievance process is initiated by an inmate filing
27
an Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form 602. Id. at '' 3084.1, 3084.2(a). The grievance process has
28
three levels of review. Id. at ' 3084.7.
3
1
C.
2
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there ―is no genuine
3
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‖ Fed.
4
R. Civ. P. 56(a); Albino II, 747 F.3d at 1169 (―If there is a genuine dispute about material facts,
5
summary judgment will not be granted.‖) A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must
6
support the assertion by ―citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
7
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
8
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory
9
answers, or other materials, or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
10
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
11
support the fact.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The Court may consider other materials in the
12
record not cited to by the parties, but is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen
13
v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v.
14
Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). In judging the evidence at the
15
summary judgment stage, the Court ―must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most
16
favorable to the nonmoving party.‖ Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of
17
Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011).
18
Plaintiff's filings because he is a pro se prisoner. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th
19
Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Standards for Summary Judgment Based on Exhaustion
The Court must liberally construe
20
In a summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the
21
defendants have the initial burden to prove ―that there was an available administrative remedy,
22
and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy.‖ Albino II, 747 F.3d at 1172. If
23
the defendants carry that burden, ―the burden shifts to the prisoner to come forward with
24
evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and
25
generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.‖ Id. The ultimate
26
burden of proof remains with defendants, however.
27
summary judgment should be denied, and the district judge rather than a jury should determine
28
the facts.‖ Id. at 1166.
4
Id.
―If material facts are disputed,
1
IV.
ANALYSIS
2
Defendant Lopez claims that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
3
because he did not file a 602 appeal claiming that Defendant Lopez used excessive force within
4
the time required under prison rules or prior to filing this lawsuit.
5
According to the declaration of B. Johnson (ECF No. 42-2), Plaintiff submitted two
6
inmate appeals to the first or second level of review between the date of the incident in
7
question, September 20, 2013, and filing of this lawsuit, January 27, 2014. These two appeals
8
were screened-out for failing to comply with applicable procedural rules. One, NKSP-D-13-
9
03961, was rejected for failing to attached the applicable rules violation report. (ECF No. 42-2,
10
Ex. D) The second, NKSP-D-13-03962, was rejected because it addressed two issues that
11
should be submitted separately, namely request for a cellmate and appeal of a rules violation
12
report. (ECF No. 42-2 Ex. E)
13
Notably, Defendant Lopez did not submit copies of these 602 forms in moving for
14
summary judgment. Defendant claims that the prison does not keep copies of screened-out
15
appeals. Indeed, Defendant initially represented to the Court in its summary judgment motion
16
that Plaintiff had not submitted any form 602 at all during this period. (ECF No. 34, p. 2:14-
17
16) (―Plaintiff filed no inmate appeals at NKSP—at any level of review—from September 20,
18
2013 through January 27, 2014‖). However, in opposing Defendant’s motion for summary
19
judgment, Plaintiff submitted a form 602 dated November 1, 2013.
20
concedes he made an error and includes the screening memos for this and another grievance
21
filed in the relevant time period. The prison’s faulty record keeping and initial misstatement on
22
this critical point is frustrating and makes it more difficult for the Court to properly assess
23
Defendant’s exhaution arguments.
In reply, Defendant
24
Nevertheless, the form 602 that Plaintiff submits in his opposition does not concern his
25
allegations of excessive force against Defendant Lopez. Instead, the form 602 from November
26
1, 2013 argues that Plaintiff did not receive due process and should get a rehearing on an
27
alleged violation against him that resulted in discplinary action. (ECF No. 39 p. 36-37) This is
28
consistent with the response from the prison, attached to Defendant’s reply, which states that
5
1
―you [Plaintiff] are attempting to appeal a RVR [Rule Violation Report],‖ and asks Plaintiff to
2
submit a copy of that RVR. (ECF No. 42-2, Exh. D). Thus, the evidence submitted in
3
connection with all briefs indicates that Plaintiff did not file an administrative grievance
4
addressing the allegations at issue in this complaint prior to filing the complaint, and thus did
5
not properly exhaust his administrative remedies.2
6
Plaintiff subsequently submitted a form 602 grievance on March 13, 2014, which states
7
in part ―C.O. Lopez used excessive use of force against me with malicious and sidistic [sic]
8
pleasure by his actions.‖
9
―appeal disposition of 115‖ and asks to ―have 115 dismissed or reheard and dropped to lesser
10
charge, dismiss pending SHU term, and restore all lost credit.‖ (Id., p. 8) The March 13, 2014
11
grievance referencing excessive force by Defendant Lopez appears to have been raised in the
12
context of contesting the results of a hearing.
13
submitted until after filing of this complaint. Thus, even if the reference to excessive force
14
were sufficient to raise the issue in the grievance process, it was filed more than thirty days
15
after the incident, and thus not in compliance with prison grievance procedures. It was also
16
filed after filing of this complaint, so further cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement. 42
17
U.S.C.A. § 1997e (―No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section
18
1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
19
correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.‖);
20
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88-89 (―The doctrine provides that no one is entitled to judicial relief
21
for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been
22
exhausted.‖) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
23
(ECF No. 42-2, p. 9) The grievance states that the issue concerns
Regardless, this later grievance was not
Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, his claim against
24
Defendant Lopez for excessive force should be dismissed.
25
\\
\\
26
27
28
2
To the extent that the form 602 grievance addressed Plaintiff’s related disciplinary proceeding,
it is worth noting again that the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims regarding his disciplinary hearing on the basis
of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). (ECF No. 8, p.4).
6
1
2
V.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant Lopez has met his burden of demonstrating that under the undisputed facts,
3
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his remedies prior to filing suit, in compliance with ' 1997e(a),
4
concerning his allegation that Defendant Lopez used excessive force against him on September
5
20, 2013.
6
7
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Lopez’s motion for
summary judgment, filed on May 1, 2015, be GRANTED.
8
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
9
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty
10
(30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file
11
written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
12
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be
13
served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that
14
failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.
15
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
16
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 29, 2015
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?