Draper v. Garcia
Filing
35
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/17/2017 RECOMMENDING defendant Garcia's 20 motion for summary judgment be granted; and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN CLINT DRAPER,
12
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-1917 GEB CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. GARCIA,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil
18
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2016, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as
19
the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found service of process
20
appropriate for defendant Garcia based upon a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment.
21
Defendant Garcia filed his answer on November 17, 2016, and then filed a motion for summary
22
judgment on February 7, 2017. In the motion defendant argues that plaintiff failed to exhaust
23
available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, with respect to his remaining claim.
24
Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion and the motion stands submitted to the court for
25
decision.
26
I. Plaintiff’s Allegations
27
28
At all relevant times, plaintiff was an inmate housed at the California Medical Facility
(CMF) where defendant was employed as a correctional officer. Plaintiff alleges that on April 9,
1
1
2016, defendant deliberately slammed a door on plaintiff’s right leg, ankle, and foot causing
2
serious pain and injuries. After causing plaintiff these injuries, defendant failed to obtain
3
medical attention for plaintiff.
4
II. Standards
5
Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action shall be
6
brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such
7
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Administrative procedures generally are
8
exhausted with respect to the California prisoner grievance process once the third level of review
9
is complete. The third level of review constitutes the decision of the
10
Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Cal. Code
11
Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.7.
12
The exhaustion requirement demands “proper” exhaustion. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.
13
81, 90-91 (2006). In order to “properly exhaust” administrative remedies the prisoner must
14
generally comply with the prison’s procedural rules throughout the administrative process. Jones
15
v. Bock, 218 U.S. 199, 218 (2006).
16
If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner / plaintiff shows
17
a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal
18
Rules of Civil Procedure. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). If there is at
19
least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was exhaustion, the motion for summary
20
judgment must be denied. See Fed. R. Civ P. 56(a).
21
III. Analysis
22
The evidence before the court indicates that plaintiff did file a grievance alleging that
23
defendant slammed a door on plaintiff’s right leg and foot on April 9, 2016. ECF No. 20-5 at 7-
24
10. However, plaintiff does not allege a denial of access to medical care in the grievance. The
25
grievance was received at the CMF appeals office on April 13, 2016. Id. at 7. The grievance was
26
reviewed and it was determined that the first level of the appeal of the grievance process would be
27
bypassed and the grievance would proceed directly to the second level. Id. The grievance was
28
accepted for review at the second level on April 13. Id. at 8.
2
1
In a memorandum dated April 22, 2016, Warden Robert Fox issued the “second level
2
response.” Id. at 22. Warden Fox informed plaintiff that his grievance was “partially granted” in
3
that his “allegation of staff misconduct” “was referred for a Use of Force Inquiry.” Id. Plaintiff
4
was also informed:
5
6
7
8
9
Allegations of staff misconduct do not limit or restrict the
availability of further relief through the inmate grievance process.
If you wish to appeal the decision and/or exhaust administrative
remedies, you must submit your staff complaint appeal through all
levels of appeal review up to, and including, the Secretary’s/Third
Level of Review. Once a decision has been rendered at the Third
Level, administrative remedies will be considered exhausted.
Warden Fox’s memorandum was sent to plaintiff on May 10, 2016. Id. at 8.
10
Plaintiff appealed Warden Fox’s decision to the third level of review on May 15, 2016.
11
ECF No. 20-4 at 12. In a letter dated July 1, 2016, petitioner was informed that his third level
12
appeal had been rejected because plaintiff did not include a CDCR Form 1858, “Rights and
13
Responsibilities Statement” with his appeal. Id. at 10. Plaintiff was informed that he could not
14
appeal a rejected appeal, but that he “should take the corrective action necessary and resubmit the
15
appeal within the timeframes specified in CCR 3084.6(a) and CCR 3084.8(b).”
16
In his opposition, plaintiff asserts that defendant ignored plaintiff’s request for a “Rights
17
and Responsibilities Statement” on April 9, 2016. ECF No. 25 at 7. He also claims he requested
18
one from the law library that day, but the law library clerk told plaintiff they did not have any. Id.
19
at 2. However, plaintiff fails to point to any evidence indicating that he requested, and was
20
denied, a “Rights and Responsibilities Statement” before he submitted his grievance for review at
21
the third level, or after his grievance was rejected at the third level, so that he could complete the
22
“Statement” and resubmit his grievance.
23
Under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.9(i) “any appeal alleging misconduct by a
24
departmental peace officer . . . shall be accompanied by the subsection 3391 Rights and
25
Responsibility Statement” which reads as follows:
26
27
28
You have the right to make a complaint against a police officer [this
includes a departmental peace officer] for any improper police [or
peace] officer conduct. California law requires this agency to have
a procedure to investigate citizen's [or inmates'/parolees']
complaints. You have a right to a written description of this
3
1
procedure. This agency may find after an investigation that there is
not enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if
that is the case, you have the right to make the complaint and have
it investigated if you believe an officer behaved improperly.
Citizen [or inmate/parolee] Complaints and any reports or findings
relating to complaints must be retained by this agency for at least
five years.
2
3
4
5
The statement must be signed by the inmate filing the appeal acknowledging that he or she is
6
aware of its contents. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3391(d).
7
As indicated above, CDCR’s administrative remedies must generally be “properly
8
exhausted” with respect to any claim brought in this court against a CDCR employee concerning
9
conditions of confinement. “Proper” exhaustion generally includes the prisoner / plaintiff’s
10
compliance with applicable procedural rules. Plaintiff failed to comply with CDCR rules by
11
failing to submit a “Rights and Responsibilities Statement” with his third level appeal. Even
12
when given a chance to correct this error, plaintiff failed to do so and he does not provide any
13
adequate justification for his failure.
14
IV. Conclusion
Because there is not a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff exhausted
15
16
available administrative remedies with respect to his remaining Eighth Amendment claim against
17
defendant Garcia, defendant Garcia’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.
18
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
19
1. Defendant Garcia’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) be granted; and
20
2. This case be closed.
21
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
22
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
23
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
24
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
25
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
26
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
27
/////
28
/////
4
1
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
2
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: May 17, 2017
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
drap1917.exh
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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?