Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231-12/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEFFLEFINGER, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00231 DAD DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Document 55)

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Luis Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s July 14, 2014, Second Amended Complaint on the following claims:(1) retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Anderson, Hefflefinger, Badger, McAllister, 

Tredwell, Sheldon, Speidell, Duncan, Lozovoy

1

and Huerta; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment 

against Defendant Lozovoy; and (3) violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Hefflefinger and Lozovoy based on conditions of confinement.

Defendants Speidell, Badger, Sheldon, Tredwell, Huerta and Anderson filed the instant 

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust on November 16, 2015.2 Defendant McAllister 

joined in the motion on November 16, 2015. Plaintiff received an extension of time to file an 

 

1

 Plaintiff spells the name as “Lozovoy,” though it appears that “Lozovoy” is the correct spelling.

2 Defendants’ motion included the required notice to Plaintiff explaining the procedure for opposing summary judgment.

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 9
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

opposition on December 15, 2015, but he has not opposed the motion. The motion is ready for 

decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

A. ALLEGATIONS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The events at 

issue occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”).

Plaintiff was confined to the Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”) in KVSP from 

November 3, 2010, to February 24, 2012, on a “non-disciplinary” hold pending transfer. He states 

that during this time, he was entitled to the same access to legal materials and courts as the general 

population. He states that he was “subjected to malicious reprisals in response to 1st Amendment 

exercise.” ECF No. 25, at 9.

Prior to his placement in ASU, Plaintiff had at least two ongoing civil rights actions in 

federal court, and he continued to attempt to file administrative appeals. Plaintiff was told by 

Defendants Anderson, McAllister, Tredwell, Hefflefinger and Badger, “You file complaints, you got 

big problems coming.” ECF No. 25, at 9. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was entitled to Priority Legal User (“PLU”) status because he had a 

thirty-day deadline. Plaintiff further alleges that he asked Defendant Anderson for photocopying 

services so that he could copy his complaint and submit service documents in Rodriguez v. Tilton, et 

al. However, Defendant Anderson only copied half of the documents, causing delay and subsequent 

dismissal of various defendants from the action. 

Plaintiff also began requesting that he be provided weekly access to his boxes of legal work, 

some of which was required for his ongoing federal litigation. Defendant Anderson promised him 

weekly that he could have access, but from November 2010 through February 2011, he did not 

receive weekly access. 

Plaintiff alleges that in response to his December 21, 2010, request for medical care for his 

established heart condition to Defendant Tredwell, he was subject to retaliatory reprisals by 

Defendants Tredwell, Badger and McAllister. When Plaintiff made the request, Defendants Badger, 

Anderson and McAllister were standing at his cell door. After the request, they ransacked Plaintiff’s 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 9
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

cell, threw all of his legal documents on the floor and took items. Defendant Tredwell falsified a 

disciplinary report accusing Plaintiff of staff manipulation. 

In February 2011, Defendant Hefflefinger became the ASU Law Library Officer and 

immediately began refusing Plaintiff access to legal materials and his legal files. When Plaintiff 

filed appeals related to the issues, Defendant Hefflefinger told Plaintiff that he would “make it 

worse” for him. ECF No. 25, at 13. Defendant Hefflefinger also told Plaintiff that he would do 

everything possible to stop his lawsuits against staff. 

On May 24, 2011, Defendant Hefflefinger falsified a disciplinary report against Plaintiff after 

illegally confiscating a portion of Plaintiff’s legal files. The report accused Plaintiff of using his 

legal files as weights for daily weightlifting. Defendant Hefflefinger also accused Plaintiff of

manipulating the medical process and requested that he be re-evaluated by medical staff in light of 

his ability to weightlift. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hefflefinger attempted to interfere with 

Plaintiff’s ADA accommodations. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hefflefinger gave supervisors and officers false information 

in his May 25, 2011, chrono. Plaintiff contends he was not even in the cell at the time, and that his 

cellmate had tied up Plaintiff’s legal files and was using them as weights. This caused Plaintiff’s 

cellmate to lock Plaintiff out of his cell and force a cell move. Defendant Hefflefinger omitted any 

mention of Plaintiff’s cellmate from the chrono. 

On July 11, 2011, Defendant Lozovoy told Plaintiff that Defendant Hefflefinger had a video 

of him lifting two hand-made weights. Based on this report, and without an examination, Defendant 

Lozovoy invalidated all of Plaintiff’s ADA accommodations and medical chronos. Plaintiff told 

Defendant Lozovoy that Defendant Hefflefinger was lying and that no such video existed.

Defendant Lozovoy then falsified a medical report claiming that he had seen Plaintiff 

walking without any problem to support the retaliatory removal of his accommodations.

Plaintiff alleges that this subjected him to deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs. As a result of losing his accommodations, Plaintiff was removed from the lower tier and fell 

down the stairs on January 1, 2012. Plaintiff was transported to an outside hospital a few days later. 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 9
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

4

Plaintiff continued to be forced to climb stairs while he had mobility problems until leaving KVSP 

on January 22, 2012. 

On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff was walking to R&R to access his legal files. Plaintiff was in 

waist chains, handcuffs and leg chains, and was not a threat. Defendant Hefflefinger threatened to 

beat Plaintiff up, and told him that he was going to do whatever he could to stop Plaintiff’s litigation. 

Defendant Hefflefinger viciously grabbed Plaintiff by his arm, which Plaintiff needed to use his 

cane, and yanked his arm as high up as he could, while calling Plaintiff a “piece of shit dirty Indian” 

for suing officers. This caused great pain to Plaintiff’s shoulder, neck and back, and caused bruising 

on his arm. Defendant Hefflefinger told Plaintiff that these actions were to physically punish 

Plaintiff for suing officials. 

On December 15, 2011, Defendant Hefflefinger entered Plaintiff’s cell and stole another 

stack of legal files. Defendant Duncan assisted Hefflefinger. Defendant Hefflefinger then falsified 

reports in an attempt to cover up his acts. 

On January 22, 2012, Defendant Hefflefinger caused Defendant Huerta to file a false 

disciplinary report, with the signature of Sheldon and Speidell, in an attempt to thwart Plaintiff’s 

pending transfer out of KVSP and instill fear. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants McAllister and Badger, as part of retaliatory punishments, 

refused to allow Plaintiff any outdoor exercise between November 3, 2010, and December 28, 2010.

Defendant Huerta, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, and as instructed by Defendants 

Hefflefinger, Sheldon and Speidell, continued to refuse Plaintiff outdoor exercise between 

September 2011 and January 2012. Defendant Huerta also falsified a disciplinary report accusing 

Plaintiff of obstructing a peace officer, with the intent to prevent Plaintiff’s transfer and keep him 

from Custody Level III reduction.

B. LEGAL STANDARD

The failure to exhaust is subject to a motion for summary judgment in which the court may 

look beyond the pleadings. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). If the Court 

concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. 

Jones, 549 U.S. at 223-24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2005).

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 9
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

5

Defendants bear the burden of proof in moving for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, 

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166, and they must “prove that there was an available administrative remedy, 

and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy,” id. at 1172. If Defendants carry this 

burden, the burden of production shifts to Plaintiff “to come forward with evidence showing that 

there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative 

remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. This requires Plaintiff to “show more than the mere 

existence of a scintilla of evidence.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 

2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986)). “If the 

undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner shows a failure to exhaust, a 

defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. However, 

“[i]f material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied, and the district judge rather 

than a jury should determine the facts.” Id.

C. UNDISPUTED FACTS

Between November 3, 2010, and February 24, 2012, Plaintiff was incarcerated at KVSP. 

ECF No. 25.

From November 3, 2010, through February 14, 2013, the date Plaintiff filed this action, 

Plaintiff submitted eight custody appeals originating from KVSP that were accepted and adjudicated 

at the Third Level of Review. Voong Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 2-9. Of these appeals, only two involved any 

claims and/or Defendants involved in this action. Voong Decl. ¶¶ 9-12, Exs. 2-9. 

In appeal log number KVSP-11-00920, submitted on April 19, 2011, Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendant Hefflefinger refused to make copies of his legal paperwork. Voong Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 7. 

In appeal log number KVSP-12-00063, submitted on December 29, 2011, Plaintiff alleged 

that Defendants Hefflefinger and Duncan removed fifty pounds of legal paperwork from his cell. 

Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant Hefflefinger falsified documents and evidence in retaliation 

for Plaintiff’s lawsuits against CDCR and its staff. Voong Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 9. 

Plaintiff named Defendant Sheldon in KVSP-12-00063, after Defendant Sheldon denied the 

appeal at the First Level of Review. Tallerico Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. 9.

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 9
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

6

Appeals KVSP-11-00920 and KVSP-12-00063 did not address Plaintiff’s allegations against 

Defendants Speidell, Huerta, Badger, Anderson, Tredwell, Sheldon or McAllister. Voong Decl. ¶ 9, 

Ex. 7 and 9; Tallerico Decl. ¶¶ 10-4, Ex. 7 and 10.

During the relevant period, Plaintiff also submitted six3healthcare reviews originating from 

KVSP that were accepted and adjudicated at the Third Level of Review. Robinson Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. 

2-5. Of these appeals, only three involved claims and Defendants in this action. Robinson Decl. ¶¶ 

9-11.

In appeal log number KVSP-HC-11032194, filed on September 14, 2011, Plaintiff alleged 

that Defendant Lozovoy was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The medical

issues arose from a spinal injury on September 8, 2011. Robinson Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 4.

In appeal log number KVSP-HC-11031984, filed on June 15, 2011, Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendant Lozovoy invalidated his mobility status based on a May 24, 2011, CDCR 128 Chrono 

authored by Defendant Hefflefinger. Robinson Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 5.

In appeal log number KVSP-HC-11032433, filed on November 22, 2011, Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendant Lozovoy falsified medical records and denied him medical care for chronic illnesses.

Robinson Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 7.

These health care appeals did not address Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Speidell, 

Huerta, Sheldon, Tredwell, Badger, Anderson or McAllister. Robinson Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 4, 5 and 7. 

D. DISCUSSION

1. Appeals Process

California law affords prisoners the right to appeal administratively any departmental 

decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate have an adverse effect upon their 

health, safety, or welfare. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). Since the revision of applicable 

regulations effective January 28, 2011, CDCR’s appeal process consists of three levels of appeal: (1) 

a first level appeal filed with one of the institution's appeals coordinators unless exempted; (2) a 

second level appeal filed with the institution head or designee; and (3) a third level appeal filed with 

 

3

 Defendants indicate that only four appeals were filed in the Points and Authorities and Statement of Undisputed Facts. 

However, Mr. Robinson’s actual declaration states that six appeals were filed, and he lists those six appeals. Robinson 

Decl. ¶ 8. The discrepancy does not impact the outcome of this motion. Defendants’ citation to the exhibits attached to 

Mr. Robinson’s declaration also seems to be incorrect, though the Court was able to easily locate the cited documents.

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 9
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

7

the CDCR Appeals Chief. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.7, 3084.8. The inmate must submit the 

first level appeal within 30 days of the occurrence of the event being appealed or of first having 

knowledge of the action or decision being appealed. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.8(b). A prisoner 

exhausts the appeal process when he completes the third level of review. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 

3084.1(b); Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010). A “cancellation or rejection” of an 

appeal “does not exhaust administrative remedies.” Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b).

2. Analysis

Defendants concede that Plaintiff exhausted his claims against Defendants Hefflefinger and 

Lozovoy. Though Defendants indicate that Plaintiff has exhausted all claims against Defendant 

Hefflefinger and Lozovoy, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claims against 

Defendant Hefflefinger concerning the alleged use of excessive force on July 15, 2011, and the 

denial of outdoor exercise. 

As to Defendants Speidell, Huerta, Sheldon, Tredwell, Badger, Anderson or McAllister, it is 

undisputed that Plaintiff has not filed any appeals setting forth the allegations of retaliation included 

in the Second Amended Complaint. Rather, as Defendants point out, all of Plaintiff’s appeals 

focused on the allegations against Hefflefinger and Lozovoy.

Turning to Defendant Duncan, Defendants appear to suggest that although Plaintiff identified 

him in appeal KVSP-12-00063, as an officer who took legal paperwork from his cell with Defendant 

Hefflefinger, it does not exhaust Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Duncan.4 Defendants 

contend that the appeal identified Defendant Duncan only “as an officer that assisted Defendant 

Hefflefinger” on the basis of Defendant Hefflefinger’s alleged scheme to retaliate against him. ECF 

No. 55-1, at 5. 

The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s description of the event was sufficient to put the prison on 

notice of the claims so as to fulfil the basic purposes of exhaustion. Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 

(9th Cir. 2016); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). 

 

4

 Defendant Duncan is not identified as one of the Defendants bringing this motion, though Defendants do not concede 

that any claims against him are unexhausted. Based on this argument relating to Defendant Duncan, the Court assumes 

that Defendants do not believe that Plaintiff has exhausted his claims against Defendant Duncan. If the Court is 

incorrect, Defendant Duncan may raise the issue in his objections.

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 9
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

8

Therefore, Defendants have carried their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to 

exhaust all claims against Defendants Speidell, Huerta, Sheldon, Tredwell, Badger, Anderson or 

McAllister, and certain claims against Defendant Hefflefinger. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to 

provide evidence showing that his available administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.

Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion, despite receiving notice of the requirements for 

opposing summary judgment and an extension of time from the Court. He has therefore failed to 

carry his burden.

E. RECOMMENDATION

The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be 

GRANTED IN PART, and all claims except (1) Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants 

Hefflefinger (for refusing to make legal copies, removing paperwork from Plaintiff’s cell, and 

falsifying documents and evidence), Lozovoy (for falsifying medical reports) and Duncan (for 

removing paperwork from Plaintiff’s cell); (2) Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against 

Lozovoy; and (3) Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim against Defendants Hefflefinger and 

Lozovoy, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust. The Court further 

RECOMMENDS that Defendants Speidell, Huerta, Sheldon, Tredwell, Badger, Anderson and 

McAllister be dismissed from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 9
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

9

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 65 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 9