Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03153/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03153-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN CHARLES BEYETT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BRAD SMITH; et al., 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-3153 EMC (pr)

ORDER

For the reasons stated at pages 27-28 of the order granting in part and denying in part

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Markee Carter, No. C 13-4373 EMC, Defendants’

motions for summary judgment are DENIED without prejudice except as provided herein. Docket 

# 24, # 25. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the deadline to file an opposition to the motions for

summary judgment is DENIED as moot. Docket # 26. This action will be referred to a Magistrate

Judge for settlement proceedings.

The Court notes that, unlike the motion for summary judgment in the Carter action,

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment here argues that Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative

remedies. The Court need not dwell on that argument long because Defendants did not satisfy their

initial burden to prove “that there was an available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did

not exhaust that available remedy.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). 

Defendants argue that the group inmate appeal that purportedly exhausted administrative remedies

was cancelled “at the third level because it did not comport with 15 CCR § 3084.2(h)(4).” Docket 

# 25 at 9. Defendants did not provide a custodian of records declaration attaching a third level

inmate appeal response or any computer printout showing the cancellation of the inmate appeal. 

Case 3:14-cv-03153-EMC Document 29 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

They relied instead on Philip Earley’s declaration as support for their argument, but his declaration

did not state that the appeal was cancelled at the third level. Instead, Mr. Earley declared that he

“drafted a memorandum on or around October 29, 2012 on behalf of [his supervisor] Mr. Smith

directing Inmate Terry to advise all inmates who signed” the group appeal to submit individual

appeals pursuant to the regulation. Docket # 25-2 at 5, 58. That memorandum was dated more than

two months after Mr. Smith had accepted and decided the inmate appeal at the second level, see

id. at 46, 57, and was not a cancellation of the inmate appeal.

The order of service found cognizable § 1983 claims against only Defendants Joe Dobie,

Philip Earley, Gary Loredo, and Jeremy Young. Docket # 6 at 4. The order of service explained

that the complaint did not state cognizable § 1983 claims against the other Defendants but omitted a

sentence dismissing those other Defendants. See id. at 3-4. Those Defendants (Brad Smith, Luu

Rogers, John Walker, K. Davis, and Elizabeth Babcock) are now DISMISSED. 

In light of the referral of these related cases for settlement proceedings, the Court now

STAYS all discovery in this action. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond to

defendants’ discovery requests (Docket # 21) is DENIED without prejudice because discovery is

now stayed. Plaintiff sent to the Court a letter dated May 10, 2015 that refers to his “disposition,”

apparently referring to his deposition. Docket # 27. If Plaintiff wants a copy of his deposition

transcript, he needs to contact the court reporter and order one from him/her directly.

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, the Court determines that this action is related to the lowernumbered action of Terry v. Smith, No. C 13-1227 EMC. The Clerk shall update the docket to list

this action among the action deemed related to the Terry action.

Plaintiff sent the Court a letter complaining about the processing of a package in the

mailroom at San Quentin. See Docket # 27. If Plaintiff wants to complain about his current

conditions of confinement, he may file a new civil rights action.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-03153-EMC Document 29 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

3

The Clerk will send to the parties in this action a copy of the order granting in part and

denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Markee Carter, No. C 13-4373 EMC

(attached as an exhibit to this Order).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03153-EMC Document 29 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 3