Martinez v. Davey

Filing 100

ORDER ADOPTING 97 Findings and Recommendations and Granting Defendants' 85 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/30/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
D. DAVEY, et al.,

No. 1:16-cv-1658-DAD-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 85, 97)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

18

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a

19

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On August 25, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 97.) The

22

magistrate judge found that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to

23

filing suit as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). (Id. at 2.) Specifically,

24

the magistrate judge determined that although plaintiff pursued the inmate grievance and appeals

25

attached to his complaint in this action but that those documents he submitted “did not identify

26

Dr. Lewis or Warden Davey, [they] did not provide enough information so their involvement

27

could be discovered, and [they] did not describe their involvement in the alleged tortious

28

conduct.” (Id. at 6 (citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.2).) Rather, plaintiff’s grievance

1

concerned the treatment he allegedly received from another doctor not named as a defendant in

2

this action. (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge concluded that defendants had met their burden

3

of showing that plaintiff failed to utilize and exhaust the administrative remedies available to him

4

as to his claims brought against the named defendants in this action. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc.

5
6

No. 98.) In his objections, plaintiff concedes that defendants have met their initial burden to

7

show that an available administrative remedy exists. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff argues, however, that he

8

exhausted all available administrative remedies against defendant Lewis because Lewis signed

9

and approved the denial of plaintiff’s inmate grievance at the third and final level of review. (Id.

10

at 2.) However, the law is clear that plaintiff cannot pursue any claims against a prison official

11

based solely on their processing and review of his inmate appeals. Plaintiff does not have a

12

constitutionally protected right to have his appeals accepted or processed. Ramirez v. Galaza,

13

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). The

14

prison grievance procedure does not confer any substantive rights upon inmates and actions in

15

reviewing appeals cannot serve as a basis for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Buckley v.

16

Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993); see also Wright v. Shannon, No. 1:05-cv-01485-LJO-

17

YNP (PC), 2010 WL 445203, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (plaintiff’s allegations that prison

18

officials denied or ignored his inmate appeals failed to state a cognizable claim under the First

19

Amendment). Thus, a denial or refusal to process an inmate grievance is not a constitutional

20

violation. Rushdan v. Gear, No. 1:16-cv-01017-BAM (PC), 2018 WL 2229259, at *6 (E.D. Cal.

21

May 16, 2018). Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of defendant Lewis.1

22

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

23

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

24

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

25

proper analysis.

26

/////

27
In his objections, plaintiff does not address exhaustion and the entry of summary judgment in
favor of defendant Davey.
1

28

2

1

Accordingly,

2

1.

3

The findings and recommendations issued on August 25, 2021 (Doc. No. 97) are
adopted in full;

4

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 85) is granted; and

5

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:
8

September 30, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3