Garza v. Harmon et al
Filing
12
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That This Case Be Dismissed, Without Prejudice 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/16/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RAUL GARZA,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
S. HARMON, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
1:18-cv-00140-LJO-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST
REMEDIES
(ECF No. 1.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
16
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Raul Garza (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
Complaint commencing this action on January 26, 2018. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff filed the
21
On February 1, 2018, the court issued an order to show cause, requiring Plaintiff to
22
show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his representation in the Complaint
23
that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies by submitting his appeal to the highest level
24
of review.1 (ECF No. 8.) On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response to the court’s order
25
to show cause. (ECF No. 11.)
26
27
28
1
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he filed an appeal concerning the claims in this action, but he
did not complete the third level of review before filing this case. Plaintiff indicates that he did not appeal his
request for relief to the highest level of review stating that his appeal was denied at the second level and he “can
not (sic) wait for 3rd, but sent in 3rd level as this is [a] retaliation claim.” (ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶5.)
1
1
II.
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
2
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with
3
respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
4
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as
5
are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the
6
available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127
7
S.Ct. 910 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion
8
is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by
9
the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the exhaustion
10
requirement applies to all suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122
11
S.Ct. 983 (2002).
12
A prisoner may be excused from complying with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement if
13
he establishes that the existing administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See
14
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2014). When an inmate’s administrative
15
grievance is improperly rejected on procedural grounds, exhaustion may be excused as
16
“effectively unavailable.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Nunez
17
v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224–26 (9th Cir. 2010) (warden’s mistake rendered prisoner’s
18
19
administrative remedies “effectively unavailable”); Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1044-45
(9th Cir. 2012) (exhaustion excused where futile); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 940 (9th Cir.
20
2005) (plaintiff not required to proceed to third level where appeal granted at second level and
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
no further relief was available); Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2009) (excusing
an inmate’s failure to exhaust because he did not have access to the necessary grievance forms
to timely file his grievance).
A threat of retaliation may render the prison grievance system effectively unavailable,
and excuse a prisoner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Sealey v. Busichio, 696 F.
App’x 779, 780–81 (9th Cir. 2017) (unpublished decision) (citing McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d
982, 984, 987–88 (9th Cir. 2015). To avoid the exhaustion bar on the ground of a fear of
2
1
retaliation, a prisoner must show both a subjective and objective basis for that fear. Id. To
2
meet the subjective prong, the prisoner must “provide a basis for the court to find that he
3
actually believed prison officials would retaliate against him if he filed a grievance” and that he
4
was actually deterred from filing a grievance. Id. To meet the objective prong, “there must be
5
some basis in the record for the district court to conclude that a reasonable prisoner of ordinary
6
firmness would have believed that the prison official’s action communicated a threat not to use
7
the prison’s grievance procedure and that the threatened retaliation was of sufficient severity to
8
deter a reasonable prisoner from filing a grievance.” Id.
9
In the rare event that a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, the
10
court may dismiss sua sponte. Bock, 549 U.S. at 215 (“A complaint is subject to dismissal for
11
failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to
12
relief.”); see also Salas v. Tillman, 162 Fed.App’x. 918 (11th Cir. 2006) (sua sponte dismissal
13
of prisoner’s civil rights claims for failure to exhaust was not abuse of discretion; prisoner did
14
not dispute that he timely failed to pursue his administrative remedies, and a continuance would
15
not permit exhaustion because any grievance would be untimely).
16
III.
17
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s response to the court’s order to show cause follows, in its entirety:
18
Plaintiff, Raul Garza, is:
19
(1)
In fear of the illegal actions by defendants holding a Secret
Hearing Committee without proper authority;
(2)
In fear that more actions by defendants can and may occur by
defendants without proper procedure and/or authority to do so,
that can effect [sic] personal safety, of the law, as:
20
21
22
23
24
(a)
defendants [have] shown a disregard of due processes of
law;
(b)
defendants [have] shown a reckless and evil conduct, by
holding a Secret Committee without proper authority
present at hearing committee;
(c)
defendants’ actions not only violate CDCR title 15
regulations, but violate also [the] penal code and federal
laws as a form of false identity, and a form of false
imprisonment;
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
As defendants [have] shown they are capable of violating California
Penal Code laws and federal laws, it is clear and visible that Plaintiff, Raul
Garza, is in a present danger of personal safety and [there] could be a need for
immediate judicial action as:
3
(1)
The threat is at a higher level of departmental officials who
govern other staff and correctional personnel, and work with
higher CDCR officials, like [the] CDCR secretary;
(2)
The threat can be also placing me at a [sic] institution where I
should not be.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
For the above reasons of threats presented, this case should not be
dismissed.
Plaintiff, Raul Garza, was on or around 6-30-2016 inadvertently
transferred from Salinas Valley State Prison to current California Correctional
Institution by the authority of Correctional Counselor at Salinas Valley State
Prison; and on 11-14-2016 at California Correctional Institution (current living)
did receive 115 for resisting peace officer, and now been transferred
inadvertently by Counselor with no Committee or annual [sic] to Calipatria State
Prison as Classification Committee chrono dated [sic] will show the actions of
defendants further, are progressing.
(ECF No. 11 at 1-3.)
14
Plaintiff has not shown that the appeals process was unavailable to him. Plaintiff
15
alleges vague fears that he will be harmed or transferred by Defendants without authority,
16
based on secret meetings. Plaintiff has not asserted that he actually believed prison officials
17
would retaliate against him if he filed a grievance nor that he was actually deterred from filing
18
a grievance. Plaintiff alleges no facts for the court to infer that Plaintiff’s fears of unauthorized
19
action against him are more than his own speculation. Therefore, Plaintiff has not met the
20
subjective prong for avoiding the exhaustion bar on the ground of a fear of retaliation. Nor has
21
Plaintiff satisfied the objective prong. Plaintiff provides no basis for the court to conclude that
22
a reasonable prisoner “would have believed that the prison official’s action communicated a
23
threat not to use the prison’s grievance procedure and that the threatened retaliation was of
24
sufficient severity to deter a reasonable prisoner from filing a grievance.” Sealey, 696 F. App’x
25
at 780–81 (citing McBride, 807 F.3d at 987–88.
26
Based on the above analysis, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the
27
administrative remedies available to him before filing suit, and this case should therefore be
28
dismissed.
4
1
///
2
III.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3
The court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing
4
suit, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and failed to show that the
5
exhaustion process was somehow unavailable to him.
6
RECOMMENDED that:
7
1.
8
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
This case be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust
his available administrative remedies before filing suit; and
2.
The Clerk be directed to CLOSE this case.
10
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
11
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
12
(14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file
13
written objections with the court.
14
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
15
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.
16
Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
17
(9th Cir. 1991)).
Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 16, 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?