Cervantes v. Salazar
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/30/2020 ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations in part and GRANTING the 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SALVADOR CERVANTES,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
No. 2:15-cv-02686 KJM DMC (PC)
ORDER
v.
SALAZAR,
Defendant.
16
17
18
Salvador Cervantes, a state inmate proceeding without counsel, argues that he was
19
subjected to unconstitutional excessive force in the Deuel Vocational Institution. The matter is
20
before the court on the assigned Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant the state’s motion
21
for summary judgment. See Mot., ECF No. 27; F&Rs, ECF No. 29. The court has conducted a
22
de novo review of the record. The findings and recommendations are adopted in part and the
23
motion for summary judgment is granted.
24
The court adopts sections I and II of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
25
recommendations, to which neither party objects. See F&Rs at 1–2; Objections, ECF Nos. 30, 31.
26
To summarize, the undisputed facts show that Mr. Cervantes complained to prison officials that
27
an officer had “dropped” him onto a concrete floor. See Cantu Decl. Ex. B at 1, ECF No. 27-3.
28
He fell hard enough that his glasses were knocked away where he could not reach them. See id.
1
1
Mr. Cervantes then filed a complaint and pursued an appeal within the prison’s three-level
2
administrative grievance system. See generally Spaich Decl. Ex. B. He bypassed the first level,
3
was unsuccessful at the second level, see id., and at the third level, his appeal was “cancelled”
4
because he did not comply with the time limits imposed by the California Code of Regulations.
5
See id. Ex. B at 1.
6
Mr. Cervantes then filed this federal habeas petition. He alleges the prison
7
subjected him to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See generally Compl.,
8
ECF No. 1. The state moves for summary judgment, arguing (1) Mr. Cervantes did not actually
9
complain of excessive force, only that his glasses were missing, so he could not prove he had
10
exhausted any claims of excessive force, and (2) the cancellation at the third level shows Mr.
11
Cervantes did not file a proper appeal, which likewise prevented him from showing he had
12
exhausted his administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary
13
judgment to the state on the first ground but not the second. See F&Rs at 7–9.
14
As the Magistrate Judge correctly explains, in resolving a motion for summary
15
judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary
16
judgment, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in
17
favor of the same party. See F&Rs at 4 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
18
248, 255 (1986), and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587
19
(1986)). And as the Magistrate Judge also correctly summarizes, prisoners must exhaust their
20
administrative remedies within the prison before pursuing a civil rights claim in federal court.
21
See id. at 4–5 (citing, among other authorities, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006)). If they do
22
not, a federal civil rights claim cannot succeed. See, e.g., Bradley v. Villa, No. 10-01618, 2015
23
WL 3540673, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2015), findings and recommendations adopted, ECF No.
24
77 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2015).
25
That said, the court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Mr.
26
Cervantes did not raise an excessive force claim. When Mr. Cervantes’s grievance and the
27
records of his administrative appeal are viewed in the light most favorable to his case, it is
28
reasonable to infer the prison understood he was complaining of an excessive use of force. Even
2
1
the prison appears to have categorized his claims this way. See Spaich Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 27-
2
4 (referring to Mr. Cervantes’s claim and appeal as addressing a “Misuse of Force”). For this
3
reason, it is not possible to conclude on this record the prison had no adequate notice that Mr.
4
Cervantes wanted to pursue a claim of excessive force—and that is all that is required to exhaust
5
a claim. See, e.g., Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A grievance suffices to
6
exhaust a claim if it puts the prison on adequate notice of the problem for which the prisoner
7
seeks redress.”). Summary judgment therefore cannot be granted on this basis.
8
9
But the state is entitled to summary judgment on an alternative ground: There is
no genuine dispute that Mr. Cervantes missed a deadline at the third level of review. See Spaich
10
Decl. Ex. B at 1 (“Time limits for submitting the appeal are exceeded even though you had the
11
opportunity to submit within the prescribed time constraints.”). For that reason, it is undisputed
12
that Mr. Cervantes did not comply with the prison’s rules for administrative review through all
13
available avenues for relief, and as a result, it is undisputed he did not exhaust his administrative
14
remedies. See Ngo, 548 U.S. at 93 (2006) (“[I]f the petitioner procedurally defaulted [his
15
administrative] claims, the prisoner generally is barred from asserting those claims in a federal
16
habeas proceeding.”); see also, e.g., Bradley, 2015 WL 3540673, at *6 (granting summary
17
judgment because the prisoner-petitioner’s administrative appeal “was cancelled for failure to
18
meet time constraints”).
19
This is true despite the prison’s labeling Mr. Cervantes’s complaint as a “staff
20
complaint.” Many courts within this circuit have held that similar staff complaints must be
21
exhausted. See, e.g., Gray v. Virga, No. 12-3006, 2014 WL 309530, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27,
22
2014) (“Processing an appeal as a staff complaint does not preclude a prisoner from exhausting
23
administrative appeals to the Director’s Level.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL
24
1330633 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014); see also Def.’s Objections at 3–4, ECF No. 30 (collecting
25
authority). Summary judgment must therefore be granted to the state.
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
3
1
2
3
4
In conclusion, the motion for summary judgment is granted. This order resolves
ECF No. 27 and closes the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 30, 2020.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?