Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01905/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01905-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD LEE DEBERRY, No. 2:14-CV-1905-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J. HABEDANK,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant’s unopposed motion for summary

judgment (Doc. 28). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment or summary

adjudication when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that

the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The

standard for summary judgment and summary adjudication is the same. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a), 56(c); see also Mora v. ChemTronics, 16 F. Supp. 2d. 1192, 1200 (S.D. Cal. 1998). One

of the principal purposes of Rule 56 is to dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. 

1

Case 2:14-cv-01905-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Under summary judgment practice, the

moving party

. . . always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of

the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together

with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact.

Id., at 323 (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)(1). 

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the

opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to

establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the

allegations or denials of its pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the

form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the

dispute exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); see also Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The

opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630

(9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433,

1436 (9th Cir. 1987). To demonstrate that an issue is genuine, the opposing party “must do more

than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the

record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party,

there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted). It is

sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a trier of fact to resolve the

parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. 

/ / /

2

Case 2:14-cv-01905-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, see

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed

before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, see Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 

Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to

produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen

Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir.

1987). Ultimately, “[b]efore the evidence is left to the jury, there is a preliminary question for

the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury

could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof

is imposed.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251.

Defendant argues that the undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff failed to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Prisoners seeking relief under § 1983 must

exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

This requirement is mandatory regardless of the relief sought. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741 (2001) (overruling Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999)). Because

exhaustion must precede the filing of the complaint, compliance with § 1997e(a) is not achieved

by exhausting administrative remedies while the lawsuit is pending. See McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court addressed the exhaustion requirement

in Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), and held: (1) prisoners are not required to specially plead

or demonstrate exhaustion in the complaint because lack of exhaustion is an affirmative defense

which must be pleaded and proved by the defendants; (2) an individual named as a defendant

does not necessarily need to be named in the grievance process for exhaustion to be considered

adequate because the applicable procedural rules that a prisoner must follow are defined by the

particular grievance process, not by the PLRA; and (3) the PLRA does not require dismissal of

3

Case 2:14-cv-01905-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the entire complaint if only some, but not all, claims are unexhausted. 

The Supreme Court also held in Woodford v. Ngo that, in order to exhaust

administrative remedies, the prisoner must comply with all of the prison system’s procedural

rules so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits. 548 U.S. 81, 89-96 (2006). Thus,

exhaustion requires compliance with “deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Id. at 90. 

Partial compliance is not enough. See id. Substantively, the prisoner must submit a grievance

which affords prison officials a full and fair opportunity to address the prisoner’s claims. See id.

at 90, 93. The Supreme Court noted that one of the results of proper exhaustion is to reduce the

quantity of prisoner suits “because some prisoners are successful in the administrative process,

and others are persuaded by the proceedings not to file an action in federal court.” Id. at 94. 

A prison inmate in California satisfies the administrative exhaustion requirement

by following the procedures set forth in §§ 3084.1-3084.8 of Title 15 of the California Code of

Regulations. In California, inmates “may appeal any policy, decision, action, condition, or

omission by the department or its staff that the inmate . . . can demonstrate as having a material

adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). 

The inmate must submit their appeal on the proper form, and is required to identify the staff

member(s) involved as well as describing their involvement in the issue. See Cal. Code Regs. tit.

15, § 3084.2(a). These regulations require the prisoner to proceed through three levels of appeal. 

See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1(b), 3084.2, 3084.7. A decision at the third formal level,

which is also referred to as the director’s level, is not appealable and concludes a prisoner’s

departmental administrative remedy. See id. Departmental appeals coordinators may reject a

prisoner’s administrative appeal for a number of reasons, including untimeliness, filing excessive

appeals, use of improper language, failure to attach supporting documents, and failure to follow

proper procedures. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.6(b). If an appeal is rejected, the inmate

is to be provided clear instructions how to cure the defects therein. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15,

§§ 3084.5(b), 3084.6(a). Group appeals are permitted on the proper form with each inmate

4

Case 2:14-cv-01905-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

clearly identified, and signed by each member of the group. See Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, §

3084.2(h). 

In certain circumstances, the regulations make it impossible for the inmate to

pursue a grievance through the entire grievance process. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 939

n. 11 (9th Cir. 2005). Where a claim contained in an inmate’s grievance is characterized by

prison officials as a “staff complaint” and processed through a separate confidential process,

prison officials lose any authority to act on the subject of the grievance. See id. at 937 (citing

Booth, 532 U.S. at 736 n. 4). Thus, the claim is exhausted when it is characterized as a “staff

complaint.” See id. at 940. If there are separate claims in the same grievance for which further

administrative review could provide relief, prison regulations require that the prisoner be notified

that such claims must be appealed separately. See id. at 939. The court may presume that the

absence of such a notice indicates that the grievance did not present any claims which could be

appealed separate from the confidential “staff complaint” process. See id. 

In this case, the undisputed evidence offered by defendant reveals that, while

plaintiff submitted grievances at the informal, first, and second levels of review, he failed to

submit a final grievance for review at the third level. By failing to oppose defendant’s motion,

plaintiff appears to concede the point. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

5

Case 2:14-cv-01905-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendant’s unopposed

motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28) be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

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

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 26, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:14-cv-01905-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 6