Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601-9/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

J. BEJINEZ, ET AL., 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________ 

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-BMK 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE 

EXHAUSTION AND DENY AS 

MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S 

SURREPLY 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE EXHAUSTION AND DENY AS 

MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY 

Before the Court is Defendants’1

 Motion for Summary Judgment Re 

Exhaustion (Doc. 30) and Motion to Strike Plaintiff Lacedric W. Johnson’s Surreply 

(Doc. 54). After careful consideration of the Motions and the supporting and 

opposing memoranda, the Court finds and recommends that summary judgment be 

GRANTED in Defendants’ favor and that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Surreply be 

DENIED as moot. As discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to fully 

exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. 

 

1

 Defendants include the warden and chief deputy warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison, as well 

as other officers, correctional officers, and nurses at the prison. Plaintiff also named the Secretary 

of the California Department of Correctional and Rehabilitation as a Defendant. 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 11
2 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison, where the 

events underlying this lawsuit occurred. On January 29, 2014, Plaintiff alleges that 

correctional officers were conducting random pat-down and unclothed searches of 

inmates. (First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 2, 4.) Plaintiff forgot his identification 

card and was ordered to remove his clothes in the shower. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff 

alleges that, unprovoked, Defendant Santos sprayed pepper spray in Plaintiff’s face 

and beat Plaintiff with a baton. (Id. ¶ 9-12.) 

Defendant Espinoza notified other correctional officers of the 

commotion and approximately ten other officers entered the shower area. (Id. 

¶¶ 15-16.) Various officers sprayed pepper spray in Plaintiff’s face and punched 

him. (Id. ¶¶ 19-23.) Plaintiff says that none of the surrounding officers intervened 

to stop the beating. (Id. ¶ 24.) 

Medical staff was summoned, and Plaintiff was wheeled on a gurney 

across the yard, naked. (Id. ¶¶ 28-31.) According to Plaintiff, he was showing 

signs of respiratory distress and was in and out of consciousness. (Id. ¶ 34.) 

Plaintiff underwent an MRI and was held in the hospital overnight. (Id. ¶ 51.) 

While at the hospital, a correctional officer informed Plaintiff that he would be 

issued a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) for battery on a correctional officer. (Id. 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 11
3 

¶ 52.) 

On February 12, 2014, Plaintiff was issued an RVR for battery on a 

peace officer resulting in the use of force. (Id. at 60.) On June 28, 2014, Plaintiff 

was found guilty of this charge and was assessed a nine-month term in the Security 

Housing Unit. (Id. ¶ 76.) 

Plaintiff filed four appeals regarding the events discussed above.2 In 

Appeal 14050513 (“Appeal 513”), Plaintiff alleged that various Defendant 

correctional officers sprayed him with pepper spray, beat him in the shower, and 

denied him medical treatment. (Navarro Decl’n Ex. B at 1-2.) This appeal was 

partially granted at the first and second levels of review. (Navarro Decl’n ¶ 6.) 

Plaintiff thereafter appealed to the third level of review, which divided the appeal 

into two issues: complaints against health care staff and complaints against 

institutional staff. (Id.) The complaints against health care staff were remanded 

back to the second level of review for reconsideration. (Id.) Plaintiff later 

appealed the amended order to the third level of review, which made a final decision 

partially granting the appeal on November 19, 2014. (Id.; Robinson Decl’n ¶ 8.) 

The complaints against institutional staff were reassigned a separate appeal number 

(Appeal 15000613, discussed below). 

 

2

 As noted in the Declarations attached to Defendants’ Concise Statement of Facts, Plaintiff also 

filed appeals during the relevant time-frame that were unrelated to the underlying events in this 

case. The Court does not discuss those unrelated appeals as they are not relevant to this case. 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 11
4 

Appeal 15000613 (“Appeal 613”), which was created by the third level 

of review of Appeal 513, was remanded to the second level of review, which denied 

Plaintiff’s complaints against institutional staff. (Navarro Decl’n ¶ 6.) Plaintiff 

appealed to the third level of review, which made a final decision denying the appeal 

on April 8, 2015. (Id.; Robinson Decl’n ¶ 8.) 

In Appeal 14-00683 (“Appeal 683”), Plaintiff similarly alleged that 

correctional officers used excessive force and denied him medical treatment during 

the events of January 29, 2014. (Morgan Decl’n Ex. C.) After a complicated 

process, this appeal was denied at the third level of review on August 26, 2015. 

(Morgan Decl’n ¶ 10; Voong Decl’n ¶ 9.) 

In Appeal 14-01520 (“Appeal 520”), Plaintiff challenged the ruling on 

the Rules Violation Report against him, wherein the hearing officer found him guilty 

of battery on a correctional officer resulting in the use of force. (Morgan Decl’n 

¶ 12 and Ex. E.) In this appeal, Plaintiff argued that the hearing officer relied on 

false reports, did not base his finding on a preponderance of the evidence, and had a 

“predetermined guilty finding.” (Morgan Decl’n Ex. E at 1.) This appeal 

bypassed the first level of review, and the second level of review determined 

Plaintiff was appropriately found guilty. (Id.) The third level of review denied the 

appeal on January 20, 2015. 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 4 of 11
5 

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As detailed above, the third level of review 

made its final decision in each of the foregoing appeals after Plaintiff initiated this 

lawsuit. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

A motion for summary judgment may not be granted unless the court 

determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed 

facts warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c). In assessing whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, courts must 

resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving 

party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); see also 

Cline v. Indus. Maint. Eng’g & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court’s function is not 

to try issues of fact, but rather, it is only to determine whether there are issues to be 

tried. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. If there is any evidence in the record from 

which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the non-moving party on a 

material issue of fact, summary judgment is improper. See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. 

v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 5 of 11
6 

DISCUSSION 

Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff 

did not exhaust his claims through all available administrative remedies. The 

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought 

with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal 

law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 

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

Compliance with the exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 

U.S. 516, 524 (2002). 

California provides its inmates the right to administratively appeal “any 

policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the department or its staff that the 

inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse effect upon his or 

her health, safety, or welfare.” 15 Cal. Code Reg. § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust 

available administrative remedies within this system, “a prisoner must proceed 

through several levels of review: (1) a first level appeal on a CDC 602 inmate 

appeal form to the Appeals Coordinator, (2) second level appeal to the ‘hiring 

authority or designee at a level no lower than Chief Deputy Warden,’ and (3) third 

level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 6 of 11
7 

Rehabilitation.” Cotton v. Cate, Civ. No. 13-3744 WHA-PR, 2015 WL 1246114, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2015) (citing 15 Cal. Code Reg. § 3084.7). To be clear, 

administrative remedies are deemed exhausted only after a decision at the third level 

of review is made. 15 Cal. Code Reg. § 3084.1(b) (“all appeals are subject to a third 

level of review . . . before administrative remedies are deemed exhausted”). 

In this case, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 on October 14, 2014. Under the PLRA and California law, Plaintiff was 

required to exhaust administrative appeals relating to this lawsuit through the third 

level of review, prior to filing this lawsuit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Cotton, 2015 

WL 1246114, at *2; 15 Cal. Code Reg. § 3084.1(b). However, decisions by the 

third level of review for each of the related appeals were made after Plaintiff filed 

this lawsuit: the third level of review in Appeal 513 was decided on November 19, 

2014; Appeal 613 was decided on April 8, 2015; Appeal 520 was decided on 

January 20, 2015; and Appeal 683 was decided on August 26, 2015. Consequently, 

the Court finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies with respect to 

these appeals prior to bringing this action. 

Plaintiff acknowledges that he did not exhaust administrative remedies, 

but he argues that he was forced to file the lawsuit prematurely due to “improper 

screening tactics.” (Opp. at 14-15.) The improper screening of an administrative 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 7 of 11
8 

appeal may excuse an inmate from the exhaustion requirement only if the inmate 

establishes, among other things, “that prison officials screened his grievance or 

grievances for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by applicable regulations.” 

Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 (9th Cir. 2010). Although Plaintiff states in 

conclusory terms that his appeals were “improperly screened,” he provides no 

evidence to show a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the screening was 

inconsistent with applicable regulations. Safeway Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 761 F. 

Supp. 2d 874, 885 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2011) (“the burden then shifts to the 

non-moving party to produce specific evidence to show that a dispute of material 

fact exists”). 

Plaintiff also argues that he is excused from the exhaustion requirement 

because “no remedies appeared to be ‘effectively available’” inasmuch as his 

appeals were thwarted by “excessive delay.” (Opp. at 14, 21.) Administrative 

remedies may be deemed “effectively unavailable” where a delay in an inmate’s 

appeal is the “result of a prison’s action which thwarts a prisoner’s attempt to 

properly exhaust administrative remedies.” Shepard v. Cohen, Civ. No. 09-01628, 

2011 WL 284958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2011). However, Plaintiff provides no 

evidence creating an issue of fact whether prison officials thwarted his attempts at 

exhaustion by excessively delaying the appeals. See Safeway Inc., 761 F. Supp. 2d 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 8 of 11
9 

at 885. Rather, the Court finds that the evidence in the record establishes any delay 

in Plaintiff’s appeals was due to the detailed consideration by appeals staff and the 

complicated process the appeals were subjected to. For example, at the third level 

of review, a portion of Appeal 513 was remanded back to the second level of review, 

which underwent reconsideration before being resubmitted to the third level. 

(Navarro Decl’n ¶ 6.) The other portion of Appeal 513 was reassigned an entirely 

new appeal number and was rerouted as a complaint against institutional staff. (Id.) 

Similarly, at the third level of review, Appeal 683 was remanded to the second level 

for further reconsideration of certain documents and issues. (Morgan Decl’n ¶ 10.) 

Only after it was reheard by the second level of review, did Plaintiff resubmit the 

appeal to the third level, which then issued a decision. (Id.) 

 In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust his 

administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit and his failure to do so is not 

excused. Accordingly, the Court recommends summary judgment be entered in 

Defendants’ favor. Townes v. Paule, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 

Dec. 13, 2005). In light of that recommendation, the Court further recommends 

that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff Lacedric W. Johnson’s Surreply 

(Doc. 54) be denied as moot. 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 9 of 11
10 

CONCLUSION 

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the claims in this case 

and recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Re Exhaustion (Doc. 30) be 

GRANTED. The Court also recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Strike 

Plaintiff’s Surreply (Doc. 54) be DENIED as moot. 

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)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and 

Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Local 

Rule 304(b). The document shall be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” Responses, if any, are due within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with the objections. Local Rule 304(d). The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014). 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 10 of 11
11 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 4, 2017. 

Lacedric W. Johnson v. J. Bejinez, 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-BMK, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT RE EXHAUSTION AND DENY AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY. 

 /S/ Barry M. Kurren 

Barry M. Kurren

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 57 Filed 01/04/17 Page 11 of 11