Miramontes v. Gower et al

Filing 25

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 07/25/16 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court assign a District Judge to this case. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendant's motion for summary judgment 22 be denied. MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 22 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PEDRO MIRAMONTES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

L GOWER, et al.,

15

No. 2:15-cv-1544 CKD P

ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §

18

1983. Plaintiff’s remaining claims arise under the First Amendment of the United States

19

Constitution and California’s Constitution against defendant Herrera (defendant). Plaintiff claims

20

that on January 6, 2014, while he was an inmate at the California Correctional Center (CCC) in

21

Susanville, defendant Herrera threatened plaintiff with a transfer to a more restrictive prison in

22

retaliation for plaintiff’s use of the inmate grievance process. Defendant argues in a motion for

23

summary judgment that plaintiff’s claim arising under the First Amendment should be dismissed

24

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

25

Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action shall be

26

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such

27

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). Administrative

28

procedures generally are exhausted with respect to the California prisoner grievance process once
1

1

the third level of review is complete. The third level of review constitutes the decision of the

2

Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Cal. Code

3

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.7.
The exhaustion requirement demands “proper” exhaustion. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.

4
5

81, 90-91 (20016). In order to “properly exhaust” administrative remedies the prisoner must

6

generally comply with the prison’s procedural rules throughout the administrative process. Jones

7

v. Bock, 218 U.S. 199, 218 (2006).

8
9
10

If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner / plaintiff shows
a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014).

11

There is no dispute that plaintiff did not utilize the inmate grievance process with respect

12

to his claims against defendant which remains in this action. Plaintiff asserts the exhaustion

13

requirement should be waived with respect to his First Amendment claim, however, because

14

plaintiff feared retaliation from defendant if plaintiff filed a grievance against him.

15

In McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held that a

16

threat of retaliatory action by a prison official would render a prison grievance system unavailable

17

so as to excuse a prisoner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies if the following conditions

18

are met:

19

1. The threat of retaliation actually did deter the plaintiff inmate
from lodging a grievance or pursuing a particular part of the
process; and

20
21

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.

22
23
24

Here, plaintiff essentially alleges defendant Captain Herrera told plaintiff he did not

25

“tolerate” accusations made against other correctional officers via the inmate grievance process at

26

CCC. Defendant then asked plaintiff “[y]ou know what happens to snitches in prison?” Finally,

27

defendant told plaintiff “maybe I should move you to Lassen . . . for your own safety.”

28

/////
2

1

According to plaintiff, “Lassen is a level III facility with a Segregation Housing Unit (SHU) also

2

known as the hole.”

3

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges, under the penalty of perjury, that he did not utilize the

4

inmate grievance process with respect to defendant’s actions because he feared further retaliation.

5

Defendant fails to present any evidence, such as other grievances filed by plaintiff against or

6

involving defendant after the events described above, which would undermine plaintiff’s asserted

7

fear of retaliation from him. The court finds these facts establish a genuine issue of material fact

8

as to whether plaintiff actually was threatened with retaliation for further use of the inmate

9

grievance process and whether that actually stopped plaintiff from filing a grievance concerning

10

the actions of defendant at issue in this action.

11

Further, the threats by defendant alleged by plaintiff in his complaint are clear enough

12

that, for purposes of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, a reasonable inmate would be

13

deterred from submitting a grievance against or involving defendant for fear that he might make

14

good on his retaliatory threat.

15
16

For these reasons, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment with respect to his
failure to exhaust argument.

17

Under Albino, the court is permitted to resolve material issues of fact as they pertain to

18

exhaustion of administrative remedies. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-1171. If defendant wishes the

19

court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve whether plaintiff was actually threatened with

20

retaliation for further use of the inmate grievance process and whether that actually stopped

21

plaintiff from filing a grievance concerning the actions of defendant which form the basis of

22

plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment Claim, defendant shall so request no later than 14 days

23

after adoption of the findings and recommendations herein. If defendant fails to request an

24

evidentiary hearing within that time period, any remaining argument defendant might have as to

25

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies will be deemed waived.1

26
27
28

1

Facts material to the question of whether a plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative
remedies prior to bringing suit “should be decided at the very beginning of litigation.” Id. at
1171.
3

1
2
3
4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court
assign a district court judge to this case; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 22) be denied.

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

6

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

7

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

8

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

9

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

10

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

11

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

12

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

13

Dated: July 25, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19

1
mira1544.exh

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4