Willis v. Taylor et al
Filing
31
ORDER DENYING 29 REQUEST TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING EXHAUSTION; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/27/2025. Dispositive Motion due by 4/30/2025. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CALVIN WILLIS,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
MATTHEW TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 22-cv-03427-HSG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
REGARDING EXHAUSTION;
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Re: Dkt. No. 29
12
13
Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San
14
Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) correctional officer Taylor, alleging that on March 14, 2019,
15
defendant Taylor used excessive force on him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Dkt. Nos.
16
1, 11. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request for leave to file a
17
supplemental brief on whether administrative remedies remained available to Plaintiff after he
18
received the January 3, 2020 response to his December 23, 2019 request for a status update; and
19
ORDERS Defendant to file a dispositive motion according to the briefing schedule set forth
20
below.
21
DISCUSSION
22
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative
23
remedies. Dkt. No. 17. The Court denied the summary judgment motion, finding that, viewing
24
the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there were triable issues of fact as to whether
25
administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to Plaintiff:
26
27
28
However, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is a triable issue
of fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to Plaintiff for
Grievance No. SQ-A-19-01083. Plaintiff alleges that he re-submitted the grievance to the
third level on September 3, 2019, but did not receive any further response from
correctional officials. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. This allegation is supported by (1) a copy of a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
CDCR Form 1858 signed on August 5, 2019, and submitted by Plaintiff as part of his
opposition to the summary judgment motion, Dkt. No. 24 at 14; and (2) a note submitted
by Plaintiff to the Office of Appeals dated December 23, 2019, in which he requests an
update as to the status of Grievance No. SQ-A-19- 01083 and references an August 5, 2019
date, Dkt. No. 17-4 at 17, which is the same date on the CDCR Form 1858. Making all
justifiable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, it is possible that Plaintiff copied the CDCR Form
1858 before he submitted it to prison authorities, then handed the CDCR Form 1858 and
his appeal of the second level decision to prison authorities sometime between August 5,
2019 and September 3, 2019, and that the CDCR Form 1858 and appeal did not make it to
the Office of Appeals through no fault of Plaintiff. Plaintiff would not know that the OOA
had not received his Form 1858 and appeal until he received the January 3, 2020 response
to his December 23, 2019 request for a status update, at which time he was outside the
timeframe during which he could take corrective action. These justifiable inferences create
a genuine dispute as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to
Plaintiff for Grievance No. SQ-A19-01083.
9
Dkt. No. 27 at 8-9. The Court instructed Defendant to inform the Court whether he elected to
10
(1) proceed with a limited evidentiary hearing regarding whether Plaintiff submitted the CDCR
11
Form 1858 on or about August 5, 2019, and whether administrative remedies were rendered
12
unavailable to Plaintiff with respect to Grievance No. SQ-A-19-01083, or (2) wished to waive the
13
exhaustion defense and proceed to the merits of the action. Dkt. No. 27 at 11-12.
14
Initially, Defendant elected to proceed with a limited evidentiary hearing for the sole
15
purpose of determining whether Plaintiff re-submitted his appeal of the second level decision in or
16
around August or September of 2019. Dkt. No. 28. Defendant has withdrawn the request for a
17
limited evidentiary hearing, saying that, after further investigating the issue, Defendant accepts
18
that Plaintiff mailed his appeal to the Office of Appeals in August of 2019. Dkt. No. 29. Instead,
19
Defendant requested leave to file supplemental briefing as to the legal question of whether
20
administrative remedies remained available to Plaintiff after the Office of Appeal’s January 3,
21
2020 response to Plaintiff’s December 23, 2019 request for a status update, arguing as follows:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant maintains however, that the Office of Appeals did not receive Plaintiff’s
resubmitted appeal and that Plaintiff still failed to exhaust administrative remedies that
remained available. After receiving no response to his re-submitted appeal, on December
23, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a request to the Office of Appeals for a status update and
received a response dated January 3, 2020. Plaintiff failed to pursue further available
remedies after he received the January 3, 2020 response to his December 23, 2019 request
for a status update. In its Order denying summary judgment for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, the Court noted that any re-submission of Plaintiff’s grievance
after January 3, 2020, would have been untimely. (ECF No. 27 at 9.) However, the
administrative remedy process allows staff to excuse late appeals. See Cal. Code Regs., tit.
15 § 3084.6(c)(4) (2019) (stating that “[a]n appeal may be cancelled” if the appeal is
untimely) (emphasis added). Additionally, had Plaintiff resubmitted his appeal in January
2020 and had the Office of Appeals cancelled the appeal as untimely, Plaintiff still could
2
1
2
3
4
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
have appealed the cancellation, which could have resulted in Plaintiff’s appeal being
reinstated. Id. at § 3084.6(e). As a result, administrative remedies remained available to
Plaintiff after he was notified that his resubmitted appeal inadvertently was not received by
the Office of Appeals, yet he failed to re-submit his appeal. As this is a purely legal
question and there are no factual disputes remaining, an evidentiary hearing is no longer
appropriate.
Dkt. No. 28 at 1-2.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s request to file a supplemental brief, Dkt. No. 29, because
6
the relevant caselaw holds that when prison officials improperly fail to process a prisoner’s
7
grievance, as happened here, the prisoner is deemed to have exhausted available administrative
8
remedies. Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir. 2017) (“When prison officials
9
improperly fail to process a prisoner’s grievance, the prisoner is deemed to have exhausted
10
available administrative remedies.”); cf. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 n.18 (9th Cir. 2005)
11
(“Delay in responding to a grievance, particularly a time-sensitive one, may demonstrate that no
12
administrative process is in fact available.”). Here, Plaintiff appealed the second level response to
13
the third level of review sometime between August 5, 2019 and September 3, 2019, and received
14
no response from prison officials. When Plaintiff inquired about the status of his grievance in
15
December 2019, prison officials responded by sending him a copy of prison records of his
16
grievances, which indicated that prison officials had no record of receiving the August/September
17
2019 appeal of the second level response. Prison officials did not instruct him to resubmit his
18
appeal or otherwise pursue the grievance further. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that
19
Plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted available administrative remedies. Andres, 867 F.3d at 1079
20
(prisoner deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies where he filed grievance in January
21
2013 and officials had not responded by December 2014, when prisoner filed federal civil rights
22
claim); see also Washington v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. CV 19-169-VAP (KK), 2020
23
WL 3057402, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 19-
24
169-VAP (KK), 2020 WL 3057401 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2020) (“Plaintiff’s administrative remedies
25
were ‘effectively unavailable’ once the OOA failed to either respond or reject Defendant’s third
26
level appeal within the 60-day time limit set forth in section 3084.8(c), regardless of the fact that
27
the OOA eventually explained the delay and responded”); Karas v. Marciano, No. ED CV 16-
28
1960-DMG(E), 2017 WL 6816858, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017), report and recommendation
3
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
adopted, No. ED CV 16-1960-DMG(E), 2017 WL 6819460 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2017) (holding
2
that administrative remedies rendered effectively unavailable where prisoner delivered grievance
3
directly to prison official, received no response to grievance, and received no response to request
4
for Olsen Review to determine if grievance ever found its way into central-file); Ledesma v.
5
Adame, No. 1:13-CV-01227 AWI EPG (PC), 2017 WL 4123305, at *9-*10 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15,
6
2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:13-CV-01227 AWI EPG (PC), 2017 WL
7
5608196 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) (finding that prisoner had exhausted administrative remedies
8
where prison officials never responded to grievance or subsequent three Form 22s submitted over
9
next four months requesting status update, one of which was forwarded to appeals office).
10
Because there are no disputed issues of fact remaining regarding Plaintiff’s exhaustion of
11
administrative remedies, the Court sets the following briefing schedule for dispositive motion on
12
the merits. By April 30, 2025, Defendant shall file his dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s opposition
13
to the dispositive motion must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28
14
days from the date the motion is filed. Defendant shall file a reply brief in support of his
15
dispositive motion no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The motion shall be
16
deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion.
17
A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that
18
Plaintiff will have fair, timely, and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose
19
the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in
20
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for
21
summary judgment). Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of
22
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you
23
must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must
24
be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about
25
any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is
26
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing
27
makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn
28
testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out
4
1
specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,
2
as provided in Rule 56(c), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and
3
documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit
4
your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you.
5
If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v.
6
Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A). (The Rand notice above does
7
not excuse Defendant’s obligation to serve said notice again concurrently with a motion for
8
summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).
CONCLUSION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
10
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows.
11
1.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s request to file a supplemental brief. Dkt. No. 29.
12
2.
The Court sets the following briefing schedule. By April 30, 2025, Defendant shall
13
file his dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion must be filed with the
14
Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed.
15
Defendant shall file a reply brief in support of their dispositive motion no later than 14 days after
16
the date the opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply
17
brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion.
18
This order terminates Dkt. No. 29.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
Dated:
1/27/2025
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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?