McLaughlin v. Castro et al
Filing
40
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies re 33 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by J. Castro, E. Magallanes, D. DeAcevedo, M. Riley, J. Perez ; referred to Judge Drozd, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/4/2021. (Objections to F&R due within 14-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)
Case 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARTIN McLAUGHLIN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
J. CASTRO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-1597-DAD-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO GRANT DEENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE
TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES
(Doc. 33)
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
17
Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his
18
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth
19
below, the Court will recommend that the defendants’ motion be granted.
20
21
I.
Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations
This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint on a First Amendment
22
retaliation claim against Correctional Officer M. Riley, Sergeant E. Magallanes, Chief Deputy
23
Warden J. Castro, Correctional Counselor J. Perez, and Correctional Counselor D. DeAcevedo,
24
and a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Chief Deputy Warden Castro and
25
Sergeant Magallanes.
26
Plaintiff’s allegations can be fairly summarized as follows:
27
On March 4, 2017, CO Riley improperly confiscated plaintiff’s prescription eyeglasses
28
Case 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 8
1
during a cell search. When plaintiff told CO Riley that he would file an inmate grievance, this
2
defendant warned him to be careful “cause this is his house and he’ll do what he … pleases.”
3
On March 5, 2017, plaintiff was placed in a holding cage and directed by Magallanes, CO
4
Riley’s supervisor, to sign a notice of placement in administrative segregation. Plaintiff refused to
5
sign the notice and told Magallanes that CO Riley fabricated a Rules Violation Report after
6
plaintiff threatened to file an inmate grievance. Magallanes warned plaintiff to “stay in his place”
7
because “this is our house.” Magallanes also said, “All you Blacks hiding out over here in the
8
E.O.P. (Enhanced Out Patient) Program should be ashamed of yourselves preying on these little
9
white boys.” As this defendant was leaving, he laughed and said, “You monkeys won’t be that
10
long in the hole.”
11
On March 15, 2017, plaintiff appeared before Perez, DeAcevedo, and Castro for an
12
administrative segregation placement hearing. Even though plaintiff informed these defendants of
13
the fabricated notice, Castro told him that “Here at Corcoran it is just not smart of a Black inmate
14
to be making waves.” DeAcevedo said, “you will sit back here 60 days so you might get a little
15
pail [sic] but the time for you to file anymore 602’s (grievance forms) will run out.” Lastly, Perez
16
told plaintiff not to cry “cause even if these charges are false, this hole time will help him fix his
17
skills to not get caught the next time.”
18
II.
Legal Standards
19
A. Summary Judgment
20
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party “shows that there is no genuine
21
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
22
Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party “initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine
23
issue of material fact.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
24
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The moving party may accomplish this by
25
“citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
26
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations …, admissions,
27
interrogatory answers, or other materials,” or by showing that such materials “do not establish the
28
2
Case 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 8
1
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible
2
evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). When the non-moving party bears
3
the burden of proof at trial, “the moving party need only prove that there is an absence of evidence
4
to support the non-moving party’s case.” Oracle Corp., 627 F.3d at 387 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S.
5
at 325); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B).
6
Summary judgment should be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient
7
to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will
8
bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof
9
concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts
10
immaterial.” Id. at 322-23. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long
11
as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for the entry of summary
12
judgment … is satisfied.” Id. at 323.
13
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
14
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect
15
to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in
16
any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are
17
exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and
18
“unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). Inmates
19
are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable
20
procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Woodford
21
v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits relating
22
to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief sought by the
23
prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).
24
The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, which the
25
defendant must plead and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. The defendant bears the burden of
26
producing evidence that proves a failure to exhaust; and, summary judgment is appropriate only if
27
the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows the plaintiff
28
3
Case 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 8
1
failed to exhaust. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). On a motion for summary
2
judgment, the defendant must prove (1) the existence of an available administrative remedy and (2)
3
that Plaintiff failed to exhaust that remedy. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.
4
2015) (citations omitted). If the defendant meets this burden, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who
5
must show that there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally
6
available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him….” Id. If the plaintiff fails to meet
7
this burden, the court must dismiss the unexhausted claims or action without prejudice. See Lira v.
8
Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175 (9th Cir. 2005).
9
C. CDCR Grievance Process
10
The CDCR has an administrative grievance system for prisoners to appeal a policy,
11
decision, action, condition, or omission by the department or staff if it has an adverse effect on
12
prisoner health, safety, or welfare. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a) (2015). Compliance with 42
13
U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires California state prisoners to utilize CDCR’s grievance process to
14
exhaust their claims prior to filing suit in court. See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir.
15
2010); see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 85-86. In 2015, administrative appeals were subject to three
16
levels of review before the remedy was deemed exhausted. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b)
17
(2015); see also Sapp, 623 F.3d at 818.
18
III.
Undisputed Facts
19
In 2017, plaintiff submitted four non-medical appeals, one of which concerned incidents at
20
another institution and are therefore omitted from review here. Of the remaining three appeals, they
21
are summarized here:
22
A. Appeal Log No. CSPC-1-17-01774
23
On April 2, 2017, plaintiff filed an administrative grievance concerning living conditions in
24
the administrative segregation unit, including lack of exercise time and an infestation of mice and
25
rats. This appeal was screened out at the first level of review. Decl. of J. Ceballos in Supp. of Defs.’
26
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B.
27
///
28
4
Case 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 8
1
B. Appeal Log No. CSPC-2-17-02164
2
On April 23, 2017, plaintiff filed an administrative grievance contesting several due process
3
violations in the context of an April 11 hearing on the RVR at which Lt. Amaya, not a defendant
4
in this action, served as the senior hearing officer: (1) it was held 31 days after the RVR issued, (2)
5
the confidential information was never sent to ISU to substantiate the charge, (3) the hearing officer
6
did not include in his report how the confidential information was deemed reliable, (4) the RVR
7
was served on plaintiff before the conclusion of the investigation, (5) the reporting employee,
8
whose presence plaintiff requested at the hearing, did not appear at the hearing, (6) the confidential
9
memorandum and the disclosure form did not support or corroborate the specific act portion of the
10
RVR, (7) the senior hearing officer refused plaintiff’s written statement, (8) the RVR included a
11
clerical error, (9) there was a dispute as to whether there was a victim, and (1) the hearing officer
12
did not complete the 115 in plaintiff’s presence. Ceballos Decl. Ex. C.
13
This grievance was granted in part at the second level of review after it was determined that
14
plaintiff’s due process rights were violated because the hearing was not conducted within 30
15
calendar days from the issuance of the RVR and because plaintiff’s request for the reporting
16
employee to appear as a witness was denied. A modification order was issued for a Reissue/Rehear.
17
C. Appeal Log No. CSPC-2-17-02219
18
On April 19, 2017, plaintiff submitted a complaint of staff misconduct concerning Lt.
19
Amaya in his role as the senior hearing officer at the April 11 RVR hearing. Plaintiff claims Lt.
20
Amaya failed to hold a hearing at all and failed to take a handwritten statement that plaintiff sought
21
to submit in his defense. Ceballos Decl. Ex. D. Upon investigation, it was determined that Lt.
22
Amaya did not violate CDCR policy.
23
IV.
Discussion
24
In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants submit evidence that
25
administrative remedies were available to plaintiff following the incidents underlying this case, that
26
plaintiff availed himself of these remedies to contest certain due process violations at the RVR
27
hearing, but that plaintiff did not raise at any point in his administrative grievances facts that
28
5
Case 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 8
1
underlie his claims here. Defendants have thus met their initial burden to “prove that there was an
2
available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy.”
3
4
The burden now shifts to plaintiff. In order to establish that the failure to exhaust was
excusable, plaintiff must show that:
5
‘(1) the threat [of retaliation] actually did deter the plaintiff inmate
from lodging a grievance or pursuing a particular part of the process;
and (2) the threat is one that would deter a reasonable inmate of
ordinary firmness and fortitude from lodging a grievance or pursuing
the part of the grievance process that the inmate failed to exhaust..”
6
7
8
9
McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077,
10
1085 (11th Cir. 2008)). See also Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 794 (9th Cir.
11
2018) (allegations of “general and unsubstantiated fears about possible retaliation” insufficient to
12
satisfy inmate's burden to produce evidence of something in the particular case that rendered
13
administrative remedies effectively unavailable) (citing McBride, 807 F.3d at 987-88); Arpin v.
14
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (“conclusory
15
allegations unsupported by factual data are insufficient to defeat ... summary judgment motion”)
16
(citing Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)).
17
In his opposing brief, plaintiff insists that he exhausted his administrative remedies and
18
points to the staff complaint against Lt. Amaya as evidence.1 Though plaintiff claims that this staff
19
complaint encompasses his claims against the named defendants, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff
20
proceeds in this action against Riley, Magallanes, Castro, Perez, and DeAcevedo on a claim that
21
they retaliated against him after he told Riley that he intended to file an inmate grievance. None of
22
the facts underlying this claim are addressed at any point in the administrative grievances filed by
23
plaintiff. Additionally, plaintiff claims that Castro and Magallanes made racially-tinged remarks
24
suggesting that racial animus motivated their decisions. Again, none of the administrative
25
grievances that plaintiff filed following these incidents even reference this conduct.
26
27
1
28
Plaintiff initially named Lt. Amaya as a defendant in this action but has since dismissed this claim. (See Docs. 18,
19)
6
Case 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 8
1
Plaintiff suggests that he did not need to raise these specific issues because his ultimate goal
2
in filing the staff complaint was to have the RVR dismissed, which he claims he successfully did.
3
That, however, is not the purpose of the PLRA exhaustion requirement. As stated above, a prison’s
4
own grievance process determines how detailed a grievance must be to satisfy the PLRA exhaustion
5
requirement. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 218. To exhaust administrative remedies, California
6
regulations require a grievance to “describe the specific issue under appeal and the relief requested”
7
and to “list all staff member(s) involved and [to] describe their involvement in the issue.” Cal. Code
8
Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a). The regulations also require the grievance to “state all facts known and
9
available to [the inmate] regarding the issue being appealed at the time of submitting the
10
Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form, and if needed, the Inmate Parolee/Appeal Form Attachment.” Id. By
11
omitting any mention of the defendants in this action, the facts at issue here, and the defendants’
12
retaliatory and/or discriminatory conduct, plaintiff failed to submit a grievance with the level of
13
detail required for exhaustion by Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed
14
to meet his burden of demonstrating that the prison’s grievance procedure was effectively
15
unavailable to him. See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166.
16
V.
For all these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS granting defendants’ motion for
17
18
Conclusion
summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
19
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
20
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
21
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written
22
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
23
Findings and Recommendations.”
24
///
25
///
26
27
28
7
Case 1:17-cv-01597-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 8
1
The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in
2
the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
3
Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 4, 2021
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?