Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01319/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01319-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JOHN GADDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. TOWNSEND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01319-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 45

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

alleging that Defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. Now pending 

before the Court is Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 45. Plaintiff has 

filed a supplemental brief; Defendants have filed a response to Plaintiff’s supplemental brief; and 

Plaintiff has filed a responsive brief. Dkt. Nos. 49, 50, 51. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ second summary judgment motion.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges that Defendants Townsend, Voong, and Sandoval retaliated against 

Plaintiff in violation of his First Amendment rights when they wrongly cancelled or otherwise 

impermissibly interfered with the processing of his prison grievances. Dkt. Nos. 1, 3.

The Court granted Defendants’ first motion for summary judgment, finding that 

(1) Plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute as to whether Defendant Townsend’s cancellation of 

Grievance No. 14-03104 was retaliatory; and (2) Defendants Voong and Sandoval’s cancellations 

or denials of Grievance Nos. 14-03409, 15-00017, 1502462, 1502945, and 15-06810 were 

legitimate penological decisions, supported by the regulations and logic, and not retaliatory. See 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 22
2

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

Dkt. No. 34. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded: 

The record shows that Gaddy filed a grievance to correct an error in his disciplinary record, 

and defendants granted the grievance and corrected the error. However, the first level 

response to Gaddy’s grievance also contained an error, Gaddy filed grievances to correct 

this error, and all of these grievances were denied and the first level response was never 

corrected. Because it is unclear from the record why defendants refused to correct the 

error in the first level response, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Dkt. No. 41 at 2.1 On remand, the Court directed the parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing 

whether Defendants’ refusal to correct the error contained in the first level response to Grievance 

No. 14-03104 constituted retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Dkt. No. 42. In 

response, Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff has filed a 

supplemental brief. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Grievance Procedure

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) provides its 

inmates the right to appeal administratively “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 Regs. § 3084.1(a). A 

prisoner must submit his complaint2on CDCR Form 602 (referred to as a “602”). On the 602 

form, an inmate explains the issue in Section A, and then lists the relief requested in Section B. 

The grievance proceeds through three levels of review: (1) screening at the first level of review by 

a prison official who did not participate in the event at issue and who is of equivalent or higher 

rank than the participating staff, unless the first level of review is exempted; (2) a second level of 

review by a hiring authority or designee at a level no lower than Chief Deputy Warden or the 

equivalent; and (3) a third level of review by a designated representative under the supervision of 

the third level Appeals Chief or equivalent. Id. § 3084.7. The third level of review exhausts 

 

1 For convenience, the Court will cite to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion as it is found in the district 

court’s docket instead of citing to the Circuit’s docket.

2 The CDCR refers to these complaints as “appeals,” but also uses the term “appeal” to refer to the 

appeals of the first, second, and third level decisions regarding these complaints. To avoid 

confusion, the Court will refer to these complaints as “grievances” instead of “appeals.”

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 22
3

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

administrative remedies, which is required before an inmate may bring suit in federal court 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. § 3084.7(d)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

The CDCR’s grievance system is governed by the regulations set forth at sections 3084 to 

3085 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 15. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 3084–3085. 

Section 3084.6(c) provides that a grievance may be cancelled if inter alia it is duplicative of a 

prior grievance upon which a decision has been rendered or is pending; time limits for submitting 

the grievance are exceeded where the inmate had the opportunity to timely submit; or the issue 

grieved has been resolved at a prior level of review. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.6(c). Section 

3084.6(a)(5) provides that the erroneous acceptance of a grievance at a lower level does not 

preclude the next level of review from taking appropriate action, including rejection or 

cancellation of the grievance. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.6(a)(5). 

Inmates have the right to file one grievance every 14 calendar days unless the appeal is 

accepted as an emergency appeal. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.1(f). If an inmate abuses the 

grievance system, an inmate may be restricted, for a period of one year, to one non-emergency 

grievance every thirty calendar days. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.4(g). Abuse or misuse of the 

grievance process includes inter alia repeated filings of grievances that have been cancelled 

pursuant to Section 3084.6(c). 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.4(a)(2). 

Inmates can challenge the cancellation of a prior grievance or challenge staff misconduct. 

If an inmate challenges the cancellation of a prior grievance, he must file the grievance within 30 

days of the inmate’s receipt of the notice of cancellation of the prior grievance. 15 Cal. Code 

Regs. § 3084.8(b)(3). If an inmate submits a grievance challenging staff misconduct, correctional 

staff screen the grievance to determine whether it should be processed as a routine grievance, or 

processed as a staff complaint appeal inquiry, or referred to Internal Affairs (“OIA”) for an 

investigation. 15 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 3084.5(b)(4), 3084.9(i)(1). Section 3084.9 sets forth the 

procedure by which grievances are deemed staff complaints, and how such staff complaints are 

processed.3 Staff complaints are considered an exception to the regular grievance process. If the 

 

3 Section 3084.9 distinguishes between a citizen’s complaint, which is an allegation made by a 

non-inmate that a correctional official has engaged in misconduct, see 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 3 of 22
4

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

staff complaint is not referred to the OIA, a confidential inquiry is conducted and a confidential 

report prepared. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.9(i)(3)(B). The inmate is notified as to whether 

the staff complaint has been referred to OIA, and whether the findings determined that the staff in 

question committed misconduct. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.9(i)(4). The inmate is not 

allowed to view the confidential report. The confidential report may only be viewed by the 

accused staff and the staff involved in processing the staff complaint. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 

3084.9(i)(3)(B). In contrast, a routine grievance is processed according to Sections 3084 to 

3084.8 which provide inter alia that an inmate receive at least one face-to-face interview 

regarding his grievance, and that an inmate be provided with written responses providing the 

reasons for the disposition of the grievance. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.7(e), (h).

B. Plaintiff’s Grievances

This action arises out of an error in an October 2014 classification chrono. At that time, 

Plaintiff was housed in the Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”) because of his participation 

in a June 2014 riot. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8–9. On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff appeared before a 

classification committee to review his housing placement and for a pre-minimum eligible release 

date (“MERD”) review. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8–9. The classification committee decided to retain 

Plaintiff in the administrative segregation unit because inter alia his disciplinary issues were 

escalating, noting four Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) terms since 2005. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8–9. 

The classification chrono generated for this hearing listed the four prior SHU terms since 2005 and 

incorrectly identified the SHU term starting on November 13, 2005, as the result of discipline for 

battery on a peace officer with a weapon, when it should have stated that it was the result of 

discipline for battery on a peace officer without a weapon. 4 The classification chrono was 

otherwise accurate. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8–9. 

 

3391(b), and a staff complaint, which is an allegation made by an inmate that a correctional 

official has engaged in misconduct, see 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.9(i). 

4 The chrono listed the following four SHU terms, with the error that triggered this action in the 

description of the first SHU term: (1) a SHU term commencing in November 2005 for battery on a 

peace officer with a weapon; (2) a SHU term commencing in May 2010 for battery on an inmate; 

(3) a SHU term commencing in August 2012 for battery on an inmate; and (4) a SHU term 

commencing in June 2013 for participation in a riot. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8.

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 4 of 22
5

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

In Grievance No. 14-03104, Plaintiff sought to have this error corrected. In Section B of 

Grievance No. 14-03104, Plaintiff specified the relief requested:

That the element in Battery on a P.O. with a weapon. The “with a weapon” portion be 

removed from the allegation prior to being sent to CSR or corrected if already sent. Based 

on I have been charged with or found guilty of that charge And that the 115 Log 

# C0511020 for the battery on a non confined person be presented by CCII Thornton, as 

she reviewed it to confirm exactly what I am talking about if necessary by a fact finder. 

Dkt. No. 25-1 at 4, 6 (emphasis in original). The first-level response (“FLR”) to Grievance No. 

14-03104 granted the relief sought and the chrono was corrected, but the text of the FLR itself 

contained yet another error. The FLR incorrectly stated that the chrono originally reflected that 

Plaintiff had been disciplined for battery on an inmate with a weapon. There were no errors in the 

corrected chrono. 

On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff appealed the FLR:

Dissatisfied. Because although the [grievance] states “granted,” nothing I requested has 

actually been granted. It has only been admitted that my claim is true. I clearly requested 

that the element battery on a peace officer “with a weapon” be removed from the 

allegation prior to being sent to CSR or corrected if already sent. You stated, “Based on 

the above information my request that the element of “with a weapon” be removed, prior to 

being reviewed by the CDR or corrected if already reviewed (I never requested reviewed) 

from the charge “Battery on an inmate” with a weapon as stated in your classification 

committee chrono documenting ICC of October 8, 2014 is “granted” at 1st level of 

Review. 1) I never requested about an [sic] battery on an inmate with a weapon—which 

isn’t listed on my 128G. My [grievance] is quite clear and it is ironic that you will point 

out a mistake to make another one to keep from correcting the issue at hand, which I 

clearly outlined in Section B. 2) I still have the same exact 114D and 128G by CCIIThornton listing Battery on a P.O w/ a weapon supporting the indeterminate SHU which is 

absolutely false. Please show me where and how the error that has been admitted—was 

corrected and where and how the action I requested has been “granted.” Either one will 

do. However if this [grievance] stands as is, I take it that you are telling me that my 

administrative remedies has [sic] been exhausted on this issue. That is a refusal to correct 

any wrongdoing. I continue to attempt to have my requested actions fully addressed and 

correctly addressed as they are clearly and correctly outlined in Section B of this 

[grievance]. CCII Thornton has already admitted the 114D and 128B states [sic] the 

wrong information in regards to the weapon being connected to the battery on a P.O. You 

granted something about a battery on an inmate with a weapon which has arbitrarily 

nothing to do with the issue of my [grievance]. Check Section B for the correction action 

requested.

Dkt. No. 25-1 at 5, 7 (emphasis in original).

On December 4, 2014, Defendant Townsend visited Plaintiff at his cell. The parties 

provide differing accounts of the ensuing conversation. According to Plaintiff, Defendant 

Townsend told that Plaintiff that he should “consider [Grievance No. 14-03104] granted” and then 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 5 of 22
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

suggested that Plaintiff withdraw Grievance No. 14-03104 as unnecessary because all the errors 

would be fixed. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 3. When Plaintiff refused to withdraw his grievance, 

Defendant Townsend angrily threatened to cancel the grievance if plaintiff did not withdraw “his 

damn [grievance].” Id. at 4. Defendant Townsend also allegedly said, “I’m tired of you filing all 

of these [grievances]—it’s time I do something about it anyway.[ ] If you [ ] don’t withdraw it 

I’m [ ] going to cancel it.” Id. 

Defendant Townsend denies that he ever spoke to Plaintiff in that way, or used those 

words, or acted out of retaliation. Defendant Townsend asserts that on December 4, 2014, he 

informed Plaintiff that the error in his chrono had been corrected as requested. Defendant 

Townsend showed Plaintiff a copy of the corrected chrono which no longer had the element of 

“with a weapon” listed. Defendant Townsend advised Plaintiff that his grievance had been fully 

resolved at the first level, and that Plaintiff could withdraw the grievance or that Defendant 

Townsend would cancel it in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 15, 

3084.6(c)(11). Plaintiff refused to withdraw his grievance. ECF No. 45-5 (“Suppl. Townsend 

Decl.”) ¶ 9.

Defendant Townsend states that he understood Grievance No. 14-03104 to be requesting a 

correction of the classification chrono. He further states that he understood Plaintiff’s appeal of 

the FLR to also be requesting that the chrono be corrected. He did not interpret the appeal of the 

FLR as requesting that the FLR be revised and re-issued. Suppl. Townsend Decl. ¶ 8.

That same day, Defendant Townsend issued CDCR Form 695 (602 Screening) which 

cancelled Grievance No. 14-03104 at the second level of screening pursuant to Section 

3084.6(c)(11), which provides that a grievance may be cancelled when the issue grieved has been 

resolved at a previous level. Dkt. No. 21-3 at 20; 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.6(c)(11).

On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff returned the CDCR Form 695 to prison authorities stating 

as follows:

This [grievance] has already been processed at second level review because as Appeal 

Analyst Mr. Bramucci recognized what I requested at prior level review was not resolved. 

Requiring me to resubmit the [grievance] for 2nd level review. Now that the [grievance] 

issue as requested really has to be granted. [Grievance No. 14-03104] is being cancelled 

instead of granted . . . after accepted 12-1-14.

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 6 of 22
7

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

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 13 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff did not file an appeal of the second-level 

cancellation of Grievance No. 14-03104. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 3. 

Plaintiff challenged this cancellation in subsequent grievances, and also challenged the 

denial or cancellation of one of the subsequent grievances. 

A. Grievance No. 14-03409

In Grievance No. 14-03409, submitted on December 4, 2014, Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendant Townsend’s cancellation of Grievance No. 14-03104 was retaliatory:

I have a right to the findings to my [grievance] whether he cancells [sic] it or not is not the 

issue. The issue is him retaliating on me for filing [a grievance], him bullying me, yelling 

at me, trying to force me to withdraw my [grievance] and then threatening me when he’s 

the appeals coordinator. All because I didn’t agree to withdraw my [grievance]. This is 

unethical behavior and staff misconduct by Mr. Townsend. If I request an action which I 

was initially told was granted but wasn’t – then when that’s corrected and the [grievance] 

is actually suppose to be granted and I’m made, forced to withdraw the finding that’s 

misconduct. The [grievance] was suppose [sic] to be granted to in the first place now that 

it really has to be granted I’m being bullied into withdrawing it.

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 22, 24. In Section B, Plaintiff requested that his allegations regarding Defendant 

Townsend’s unethical behavior be investigated, and that Plaintiff not be retaliated against for 

filing grievances. Id. 

On December 11, 2014, Grievance No. 14-03409 was accepted at the second level of 

review and screened to determine whether it should be processed as a staff complaint or as a 

regular grievance. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 22–23, 26–27. On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff received the 

second level decision denying this grievance. The second level decision described Grievance No. 

14-03409 as requesting that Grievance No. 14-03104 be processed. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 26. The 

second level decision determined that Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to “meet the criteria 

of a staff complaint”:

[Plaintiff] failed to establish that CCII Townsend violated any sections of the CCR, Title 

15, to warrant an investigation into possible reasons for a Staff Complaint as determined 

by the CDW per CCR, Title 15, Section 3084.9. His request for an investigation into his 

allegations is DENIED.

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 27. Because the second level decision determined that there had been no staff 

misconduct, the grievance was processed as a routine grievance. The allegations regarding 

Defendant Townsend’s misconduct were no longer considered and correctional officials therefore 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 7 of 22
8

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

focused only on whether Defendant Townsend’s cancellation of Grievance No. 14-03104 was in 

accordance with applicable prison regulations. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 23–27. 

On February 8, 2015, Plaintiff appealed the second level decision as follows:

Dissatisfied. The issue has not even been addressed. The issue is retaliation for filing [a 

grievance] resulting in cancellation after the threat was made. The issue about whether or 

not this [grievance] meets staff complaint standards is not an issue here. No investigation 

into these matters reveals further that the issue needs to be investigated. It doesn’t state 

why the [grievance] was cancelled; the reason was retaliation. 

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 23. 

On July 16, 2015, this grievance was cancelled pursuant to Section 3084.6(c)(2) for 

duplicating a previous grievance, specifically TLR Case No. 1411497 (Local Log No. PBSP-15-

00017), and Plaintiff was informed that his administrative remedies had been exhausted. Dkt. No. 

1-1 at 29. On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff responded by returning the third level decision to 

correctional officials with the following handwritten note on the decision:

This is a retaliation appeal about appeal coordinator Townsend. I already appealed 

Grievance No. 14-03104. This is not a duplicate to that, check action requested. Please 

make the appropriate corrections. This is not an appeal about cancelling my appeal; it’s 

about retaliation, with attachments you requested. 

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 29 (emphasis in original). On August 18, 2015, Chief Voong warned him that 

resubmitting a previously-cancelled grievance was prohibited by prison regulations and considered 

abuse of the grievance process:

It has been determined that you are attempting to submit [a grievance] that has been 

previously cancelled. Pursuant to CCR 3084.4 you are advised that this is considered 

misuse or abuse of the [grievance] process. Repeated violations may lead to your being 

placed on [grievance] restriction as described in CCR 3084.4(g).

Although you requested that this [grievance] be a staff complaint, the CDW at PBSP 

reviewed your complaint and found that you failed to establish that CCII Townsend 

violated any section of the Title 15 which would warrant an investigation into possible 

reasons for a Staff Complaint. Appeal # PBSP-14-03409 was therefore not categorized as 

a “Staff Complaint” but instead categorized as “Legal,” and addressed the Rejection, 

Cancellation, and Withdrawal Criteria in the Title 15 which applies to [grievance] # PBSP14-03104. Since the third level has already used the same criteria to review the 

cancellation of PBSP-14-03104 in TLR 1411497, this [grievance] remains cancelled at the 

third level for being duplicative.

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 31. 

//

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 8 of 22
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Grievance No. 15-00017

In Grievance No. 15-00017, submitted on January 1, 2015, Plaintiff complained that 

Grievance No. 14-03104 had been cancelled “without a reason stated in writing.” He stated that 

the request to withdraw the appeal of the FLR made no sense because Grievance No. 14-03104 

had already been accepted at the second level of review. He further stated that the cancellation 

was unjustified because he had not done anything to warrant the cancellation and that he had “a 

right to the finding of [Grievance No. 14-03104] without withdrawing [Grievance No. 14-03104].” 

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 14–15. In Section B, Plaintiff wrote that he wanted Grievance No. 14-03104 

“heard with the appropriate findings therefore the appeal will be allowed to go through the full 

process and the outcome documented in this appeal.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 15. The second level review 

denied this grievance, finding that Grievance No. 14-03104 was properly cancelled at the second 

level because the relief requested was granted in the first level. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 17–18. The third 

level decision also denied this grievance on the same grounds. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 19–20.

Plaintiff has stated that he does not consider the denial of this grievance to be retaliatory. 

Dkt. No. 48 at 1. 

C. Grievance No. 1502462 (OOA-14-10593)

In Grievance No. 1502462, submitted on September 1, 2015, Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendant Voong improperly cancelled Grievance No. 14-03409 as duplicative and that prison 

officials failed to respond to the primary allegation set forth in Grievance No. 14-03409, which is 

that Defendant Townsend cancelled Grievance No. 14-03409 in retaliation for his protected 

activity. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 33–34. In Section B, Plaintiff requested that Grievance No. 14-03409 be 

accepted and be allowed to proceed as a grievance regarding Defendant Townsend’s retaliatory 

actions so that he could exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this retaliation claim. 

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 33. 

On December 8, 2015, Defendant Voong issued a third level decision regarding Grievance 

No. 1502462, stating that the grievance had been cancelled pursuant to Section 3084.6(c)(4) for 

exceeding the time limits for submitting the grievance:

Your [grievance] was cancelled on July 16, 2015 for duplicating a previous or pending 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 9 of 22
10

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

appeal and mailed to you on July 28, 2015. Your [grievance], appealing the cancellation of 

TLR 1410593 was received at the Office of Appeals on September 8, 2015. The envelope 

containing your submission was signed and dated by Correctional Staff on September 1, 

2015 and has a postmark of September 4, 2015. You are past time constraints.

Pursuant to CCR 3084.6(e), once [a grievance] has been cancelled, that [grievance] may 

not be resubmitted. However, a separate [grievance] can be filed on the cancellation 

decision. The original [grievance] may only be resubmitted if the [grievance] on the 

cancellation is granted. You have 30 calendar days to appeal the cancellation. Time 

constraints begin from the date on the screen out form which cancelled your [grievance].

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 38. Section 3084.6(e) prohibits an inmate from resubmitting or appealing a 

grievance that has been cancelled, but allows an inmate to file a separate grievance challenging the 

cancellation. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.6(e). As discussed supra, Section 3084.8(b)(3) requires 

that a grievance challenging the cancellation of another grievance must be filed within 30 days of 

the inmate’s receipt of the notice of cancellation. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.8(b)(3). 

D. Grievance No. 1502945 (OOA-14-10593)

In Grievance No. 1502945, submitted on September 15, 2015, Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendant Voong violated his First Amendment right to access the courts when he cancelled 

Grievance No. 14-03409 because the cancellation prevented him from exhausting his 

administrative remedies regarding Defendant Townsend’s retaliatory behavior. Plaintiff also 

alleged that he was unable to appeal the cancellation of Grievance No. 14-03409 because 

Defendant Voong informed him that he risked losing his appeal rights if he did so. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 

41–42. In Section B, Plaintiff requested an investigation into why Defendant Voong prevented 

him from accessing the courts and exhausting his administrative remedies, and requested that 

Defendant Voong be impartial in administering the grievance system. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 41. 

Plaintiff’s grievance was treated as correspondence. On October 5, 2015, Plaintiff’s 

grievance was returned to him, accompanied by a letter responding to his allegations:

The third level has already reviewed the cancellation of PBSP-14-03104 in TLR 1411497 

Although you requested that this [grievance] be a Staff Complaint, the CDW at PBSP 

reviewed your complaint and found that you failed to establish that CCII Townsend 

violated any section of the Title 15 which would warrant an investigation into possible 

reasons for a Staff Complaint. [Grievance No.] PBSP-14-03104 was therefore not 

categorized as a Staff Complaint, but instead categorized “Legal,” and addressed the 

Rejection, Cancellation, and Withdrawal Criteria in the Title 15 which applies to 

[Grievance No.] PBSP-14-03104. Since the third level has already used the same criteria 

to review the cancellation of PBSP-1403104 in TLR 1411497, this [grievance] remains 

cancelled at the third level for being duplicative.

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 10 of 22
11

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

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 43. 

On October 9, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a Form 22, stating that the grievance had been 

returned to him but there was no log number, no answer, no cancellation letter, and no rejection 

letter. Plaintiff asked how he could get his grievance addressed, and how he could exhaust his 

administrative remedies with respect to his claim that Defendant Voong was denying him access 

to the courts. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 44. 

On October 12, 2015, Plaintiff returned the October 5, 2015 letter to correctional officials. 

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 43. That same day, he wrote to both Defendant Voong and the Chief of Inmate 

Appeals, asking why this grievance had been returned and how he could get the grievance 

addressed and exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 46, 49. 

On October 20, 2015, Defendant Sandoval responded, stating that Plaintiff’s grievance was 

being returned because it had been treated as correspondence and not as a grievance, and that the 

October 5, 2015 letter explained the reasons why. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 44. 

On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a Form 22 stating that he was again returning this 

grievance back to prison authorities, and requesting clarification as to whether the grievance had 

been “rejected, cancelled or what.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 50. Plaintiff also stated that Defendant Voong 

should not be reviewing this grievance since the allegations were against him. On October 21, 

2015, Defendant Sandoval responded and stated that Plaintiff’s grievance had been received and 

would be processed in date order. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 50. 

On January 21, 2016, Plaintiff was issued a third level decision for this grievance. The 

third level decision denied this grievance:

II. Screener’s Decision: The [Office of Appeals] found that the [grievance] in question, 

Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) Log #14-03104, was cancelled for being resolved at a 

previous level. This cancellation was already reviewed at the Third Level of Review 

(TLR) within Log #1411497. While the appellant’s [grievance] regarding this cancellation 

was accepted and addressed by appeals staff at PBSP, the OOA found that the [grievance] 

was a duplicate matter and additional review was unnecessary.

III. Third Level Decision: [Grievance] is denied.

A. Findings: Although the appellant asserts that his [grievance] was inappropriately 

cancelled by the [Office of Appeals], he has not presented sufficient evidence to 

support his claim that the [grievance] was not a duplicate issue. The appellant 

submitted PBSP Log #14-03409 as a staff complaint matter against the Appeals 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 11 of 22
12

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

Coordinator. However, the [grievance] was reviewed by the institution’s hiring 

authority and it was determined that the [grievance] did not meet the criteria for 

processing as a staff complaint. 

Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section (CCR) 

3084.6(a)(5), “Erroneous acceptance of [a grievance] at a lower level does not 

preclude the next level of review from taking appropriate action, including rejection 

or cancellation of the [grievance].” The appellant has failed to submit evidence that 

the actions of the [Office of Appeals] were inappropriate or inconsistent with the 

regulations cited herein. The appellant’s [grievance] claim that appeal staff at 

PBSP incorrectly cancelled his submitted [grievance] was already through the TLR. 

Additional relief in this matter at the TLR is unwarranted.

Dkt. No.1-1 at 53–54.

E. Grievance No. 15-06810

In Grievance No. 15-06810, submitted December 17, 2015, Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendants Sandoval and Voong failed to investigate his claims that Defendant Townsend 

retaliated against him when they cancelled his grievance5on December 15, 2015. In Section B, 

Plaintiff requested that his allegations be investigated by “a higher authority due to the fact that 

both M Voong and Sandoval are high ranking officials in the appeals office.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 56–

58. 

This grievance was accepted at the third level of review and denied on February 25, 2015:

II. Screener’s Decision: The [Office of Appeals] cancelled the [grievance] in accordance 

with the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section (CCR) 3084.6(c)(4). Time 

limits for submitting the [grievance] were exceeded even though the appellant had the 

opportunity to submit within the prescribed time constraints.

III. Third Level Decision: [Grievance] is denied.

A. Findings. Although the appellant asserts that the OOA failed to properly 

investigate his [grievance] claim, the fact remains that he failed to submit his 

[grievance] timely. A previously submitted [grievance] was cancelled on July 15, 

2015, as it duplicate [sic] a previous or pending [grievance]. The appellant was 

advised that this [grievance] had been cancelled on July 28, 2015. However, the 

[grievance] in question (OOA Log #14-10593) had a signature from staff as being 

accepted for processing dated September 1, 2015, which is beyond the allowable 30 

calendar days.

Pursuant to the CCR 3084.8(b)(1), the appellant had 30 calendar days to submit his 

[grievance] to the TLR. The most recent changes to department [grievance] 

regulations ensure that an appellant has 30 calendar days to cover the amount of 

time it takes for the [grievance] to be mailed and for the time it takes to obtain the 

necessary documentation. The appellant is correct that OOA staff did process the 

 

5 The grievance referred to in Grievance No. 15-06810 appears to be Grievance No. 1502945. The 

third level decision in Grievance No. 1502945 was dated on December 8, 2015 and most likely 

received soon thereafter by Plaintiff. 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 12 of 22
13

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

[grievance] in question, but it was his inability to submit a timely [grievance] that 

caused the matter to be cancelled. The appellant has failed to submit evidence that 

the actions of the OOA were inappropriate or inconsistent with the regulations cited 

herein. Therefore, no relief is provided at the TLR.

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 60.

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show there is 

“no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (2014). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the 

case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material 

fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party. See id.

A court shall grant summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing 

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that 

party will bear the burden of proof at trial [,] . . . since a complete failure of proof concerning an 

essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”

See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The moving party bears the initial 

burden of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue 

of material fact. Id. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “go beyond the pleadings 

and by [his] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on 

file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” See id. at 324 

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

A verified complaint may be used as an opposing affidavit under Rule 56, as long as it is 

based on personal knowledge and sets forth specific facts admissible in evidence. See Schroeder 

v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 & nn.10–11 (9th Cir. 1995) (treating plaintiff’s verified complaint 

as opposing affidavit where, even though verification not in conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, 

plaintiff stated under penalty of perjury that contents were true and correct, and allegations were 

not based purely on his belief but on his personal knowledge). Plaintiff’s complaint is made under 

penalty of perjury, so the facts therein are considered in the adjudication of the summary judgment 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 13 of 22
14

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

motion.

The court’s function on a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility 

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a disputed material fact. See T.W. 

Elec. Serv. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The evidence must 

be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and inferences to be drawn from the 

facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See id. at 631. If the 

evidence produced by the moving party conflicts with evidence produced by the nonmoving party, 

the court must assume the truth of the evidence submitted by the nonmoving party. See Leslie v. 

Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999).

II. First Amendment Retaliation Standard

Retaliation by a state actor for the exercise of a constitutional right is actionable under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would have been proper. See Mt. 

Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283–84 (1977). “Within the prison 

context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An 

assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that 

prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). The prisoner must 

show that the type of activity he was engaged in was constitutionally protected, that the protected 

conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the alleged retaliatory action, and that the 

retaliatory action advanced no legitimate penological interest. Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 

267–68 (9th Cir. 1997) (inferring retaliatory motive from circumstantial evidence). 

The prisoner bears the burden of pleading and proving absence of legitimate correctional 

goals for the conduct of which he complains. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). 

At that point, the burden shifts to the prison official to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

that the retaliatory action was narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate penological purpose. See 

Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461–62 (9th Cir. 1995) (defendants had qualified immunity 

for their decision to transfer prisoner to preserve internal order and discipline and maintain 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 14 of 22
15

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

institutional security). Prison officials cannot simply articulate a general justification for their 

actions: they must show why their particular action was reasonably related to the legitimate 

interest. Shephard v. Quillen, 840 F.3d 686, 692 (9th Cir. 2016) (defendants must show that they 

placed plaintiff in administrative segregation because there were witnesses in general population 

whom he could have improperly influenced; not enough to simply assert that administrative 

segregation generally helps keep prisoners safe and investigations untainted). Courts must also 

consider whether there were ready alternatives to the retaliatory action for achieving the 

governmental objectives. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1272 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. Analysis

In his post-remand pleadings, Plaintiff states that his principal claim is that Defendant 

Townsend cancelled Grievance No. 14-03104 in retaliation for Plaintiff alleging in Grievance No. 

14-03104 that prison staff had made false allegations against him. Plaintiff also argues that 

Defendants’ cancellation or denials of Grievance No. 14-03409, Grievance No. 1502462, 

Grievance No. 1502945, and Grievance No. 15-06810 prove that the cancellation of Grievance 

No. 14-03104 was retaliatory. In their second summary judgment motion, Defendants argue that 

the dispositions of Grievance No. 14-03104, Grievance No. 15-00017, and Grievance No. 

1502462 were supported by prison regulations. They also argue that Plaintiff cannot hold 

Defendants liable for inmate appeals that they did not handle and that there is no evidence that 

Defendant Sandoval responded to Plaintiff’s Form 22 inquires with retaliatory animus. They 

argue that, in the alternative, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 

A. There is No Genuine Dispute as to Whether Cancellation of Grievance No. 14-

03104 Was Retaliatory 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Townsend cancelled Grievance No. 14-03104 because 

Plaintiff had filed a grievance alleging that prison staff made false allegations against him. Even 

viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is no genuine dispute as to whether 

the cancellation of Grievance No. 14-03104 was an adverse action or as to whether the 

cancellation reasonably advanced a legitimate correctional goal.

Plaintiff received the relief requested in Grievance No. 14-03104. In Section B of 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 15 of 22
16

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

Grievance No. 14-03104, Plaintiff asks that the chrono be corrected to reflect that he had 

committed battery on a peace officer without a weapon. Although the FLR misstated the relief 

provided, it is undisputed that the chrono was properly corrected to state battery on a peace officer, 

with no mention of a weapon. Pursuant to the applicable regulations, a grievance may be 

cancelled for various reasons, including where the relief requested was granted at the prior level, 

as is the case here. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.6(c)(11). The cancellation of Grievance No. 14-

03104 was not an adverse action because Plaintiff had received the relief requested and the 

cancellation was authorized by California’s regulations, which serve the legitimate penological 

purpose of the efficient disposition of inmate grievances. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 3084.1, 

3084.4, and 3084.5.

From what the Court can determine from the record, Plaintiff appears to believe that 

because the FLR wrongly characterized the error that was corrected in the chrono as a prior battery 

on an inmate, rather than a battery on a correctional officer, the first level appeal was granted as to 

some ground he did not actually raise. See Dkt. No. 25-1 at 7 (“I never requested anything about a 

battery on inmate with a weapon. . . . It is ironic that you will point out 1 mistake to make another 

one, to keep from correcting the issue at hand, which I clearly stated in section B.2.”). But there is 

no genuine dispute based on the record that the first level appeal in fact did grant exactly the relief 

Plaintiff requested. While Plaintiff now argues that “the grievance still contained error, giving 

[him] every right to resubmit the grievance after the first level response,” Dkt. No. 49 at 1, based 

on the undisputed facts here the Court finds it plain that section 3084.6(c)(11) authorized 

Defendant Townsend to cancel the grievance, because the substantive relief Plaintiff requested 

was granted at the first level. 

Defendant Townsend’s conversation with Plaintiff on December 4, 2014, also does not 

support a finding of retaliatory adverse action. Plaintiff’s argument is that the conversation 

indicated that Defendant Townsend cancelled Grievance No. 14-03104 solely because Plaintiff

refused to withdraw it, and that Defendant Townsend could have otherwise allowed the grievance 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 16 of 22
17

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

to proceed.6 However, prison regulations and the language of Plaintiff’s appeal dictated the 

disposition of the appeal of the FLR. Plaintiff’s appeal requested that the second level review 

grant the relief requested in Section B, namely the correction of the chrono. Accordingly, the 

grievance was cancelled according to Section 3084.6(c)(11), which allows the cancellation of 

grievances that have been resolved at the prior level. Even accepting Plaintiff’s characterization 

of the conversation, Defendant Townsend’s statements to the effect that he planned to cancel the 

grievance if not withdrawn described an action he had the right to take under the relevant 

regulation, and do not create a triable issue of fact as to whether the cancellation was an adverse 

action in response to protected conduct. 

In its order reversing and remanding this case, the Ninth Circuit stated that Plaintiff filed 

grievances to correct the error in the FLR to Grievance No. 14-03104, and that it is unclear from 

the record why Defendants refused to correct the error. Dkt. No. 41 at 2. The Court has not 

identified anything in the record that establishes that prison regulations require officials to correct 

typographical errors in their responses to grievances, and Plaintiff has not directed the Court to 

any such regulation.7 Also, having re-reviewed the record closely, the Court finds it undisputed 

that nothing in the record, including Plaintiff’s grievances on their face, indicates that Plaintiff 

requested that the error in the FLR to Grievance No. 14-03104 be corrected. When Plaintiff 

appealed the FLR of Grievance No. 14-03104, he stated that he wanted the relief requested in 

 

6 Plaintiff mischaracterizes Defendant Townsend’s Second Declaration (Dkt. No. 45-15) as 

acknowledging that Defendant Townsend had the option of granting the appeal and allowing 

Grievance No. 14-03104 to proceed with the subsequent levels of review. Dkt. No. 49 at 2–3. 

Defendant Townsend clearly states that he did not believe that prison regulations allowed him to 

grant Grievance No. 14-03104 at the second level of review. Defendant Townsend further states

that he could only have granted the appeal if he ignored Title 15. Townsend Supp. Decl. ¶ 11.

7 Reading the entire FLR in context, it is clear that the “Battery on an Inmate with a Weapon” 

references are typographical errors. Under “Determination of Issue,” the FLR accurately describes 

the error in the chrono and the needed correction. See Dkt. No. 45-12 at 4 (“After a close review 

of this matter, I find that the charge . . . dated November 13, 2005 for Battery on a Peace Officer 

Not Involving the Use of a Weapon was erroneously documented in the Classification Committee 

Chrono for ICC of October 8, 2014. Specifically, it was documented that a weapon was used in 

that offense which is incorrect.”). It is undisputed that this was the error Plaintiff challenged in his 

original grievance, and also undisputed that the chrono contained no reference to any “Battery on 

an Inmate with a Weapon.” See 25-1 at 4, 6; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8. Captain Parry confirms in his 

declaration that the incorrect description in the FLR was an inadvertent error. Dkt. No. 45-11 at 

¶ 6.

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 17 of 22
18

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

Section B, which was the correction of the chrono. Dkt. No. 25-1 at 4, 6. Grievance No. 14-

03409 alleged that Defendant Townsend’s cancellation of Grievance No. 14-03104 was 

retaliatory, and requested that Defendant Townsend be investigated and that Plaintiff not be 

retaliated against. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 22, 24. Grievance No. 15-00017 alleged that Grievance No. 14-

03104 had been cancelled without a reason stated in writing, and requested that the cancellation be 

rescinded and that Grievance No. 14-03104 be allowed to go through the “full process.” Dkt. No. 

1-1 at 17–18. Grievance No. 1502462 alleged that Defendant Voong improperly cancelled 

Grievance No. 14-03409 as duplicative, and requested that Grievance No. 14-03409 be allowed to 

proceed so that Plaintiff could exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this claim. Dkt. 

No. 1-1 at 33–34. Grievance No. 1502945 alleged that Defendant Voong violated Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment right to access the courts when he cancelled Grievance No. 14-03409 because the 

cancellation prevented him from exhausting his administrative remedies regarding Defendant 

Townsend’s retaliatory behavior. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 41–42. Grievance No. 15-06810 alleged that 

Defendants Sandoval and Voong failed to investigate Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 

Townsend when they cancelled Grievance No. 14-03409, and requested that these allegations be 

investigated by “a higher authority due to the fact that both M Voong and Sandoval are high 

ranking officials in the appeals office.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 56–58. 

Plaintiff now claims in his supplemental brief that he sought correction of the FLR by 

filing a grievance that was later cancelled. Dkt. No. 49 at 2. The Court presumes that Plaintiff is 

referring to Grievance No. 14-03409, and not to his appeal of the FLR, because he specifies that a 

grievance was filed, and not an appeal. Nowhere in Grievance No. 14-03409 does Plaintiff 

discuss the error in the FLR or request the correction of the FLR. Grievance No. 14-03409 

identifies two issues. First, Grievance No. 14-0309 alleges that Defendant Townsend retaliated 

against him by yelling, bullying, and threatening him, and trying to force him to withdraw his 

grievance. Second, Grievance No. 14-03409 argues: 

If I request an action which I was initially told was granted but wasn’t – then when that’s 

corrected and the [grievance] is actually suppose [sic] to be granted and I’m made, forced 

to withdraw the finding that’s misconduct. The [grievance] was suppose [sic] to be

granted to in the first place now that it really has to be granted I’m being bullied into 

withdrawing it.

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 18 of 22
19

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

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 22, 24. The first issue grieved is Defendant Townsend’s behavior on December 4, 

2014. It is unclear what the second issue grieved is, especially given that Plaintiff appears to 

acknowledge that the error was corrected. Plaintiff emphasizes “an action which I was initially 

told was granted but wasn’t” and argues that being forced to withdraw the finding reflected

misconduct on the part of Defendant Townsend. There is no indication from Plaintiff’s allegations 

that he was grieving the failure to correct the FLR. Also, the relief requested in Grievance No. 14-

03409 was that Defendant Townsend’s unethical behavior be investigated, and that Plaintiff not be 

retaliated against for filing grievances. Id. There is no indication that Plaintiff was seeking a 

correction of the FLR.

The Court also notes there is no basis in the record to conclude that either the corrected 

error in the October 2014 classification chrono or the uncorrected error in the FLR affected 

Plaintiff’s housing or classification. The CDCR uses an Inmate Classification Score System 

(“ICSS”) to determine an inmate’s housing placement. Dkt. No. 45-3 (“Hancock Decl.”), ¶ 6. 

After considering several variables, such as an inmate’s social factors and history of incarceration 

behavior, the ICSS assigns an inmate one of four scores. These four scores correspond to the four 

housing security levels. The greater a score, the higher the security level of the housing. Hancock 

Decl. ¶ 7. A score of 0-18 is Level I, 19-27 is Level II, 28-51 is Level III, and 52+ is Level IV. 

Hancock Decl. ¶ 7. Level III and IV inmates are placed in 180 degree or 270 celled housing units. 

Hancock Decl. ¶ 7. The Security Housing Unit is the most secure area within a Level IV prison. 

It is designed to provide maximum coverage and to house inmates that cannot be housed with the 

general population of inmates, such as inmates that are validated prison gang members, gang 

leaders, or inmates who have been found guilty of certain disciplinary actions. SHU terms vary in 

length. Hancock Decl. ¶ 8. As noted in the October 2014 classification chrono, when Plaintiff 

appeared before the classification committee, his classification score was 435 and he had been 

assigned to the SHU in June 2014 because he had been found guilty of participating in a riot. 

Hancock Decl. ¶ 9. In other words, prior to the issuance of the classification chrono and the

related FLR, Plaintiff had already been deemed a Level IV inmate and ineligible for 270-design 

Level IV housing. Hancock Decl. ¶ 9. The classification committee’s October 2014 decision to 

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 19 of 22
20

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

retain him in administrative segregation was based on numerous factors, including having had four 

SHU terms since 2005, but there is no evidence that the committee focused on the disciplinary 

violations triggering the SHU terms. Accordingly, there is no basis in the record, even making all 

reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, to support Plaintiff’s claim that either error affected his 

classification score or housing placement.

The Court therefore GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect to 

Plaintiff’s claim that Grievance No. 14-03104 was cancelled in retaliation for engaging in 

protected activity, in violation of the First Amendment. 

B. There is No Genuine Dispute as to Whether Handling of Subsequent 

Grievances Was Retaliatory 

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is also no genuine dispute as 

to whether Defendants’ disposition of the grievances after Grievance No. 14-03104 was 

retaliatory. 

First, there is no genuine dispute that the cancellation or denials of these grievances were

not retaliatory adverse actions. Plaintiff argues that these grievances—Grievance No. 14-03409, 

Grievance No. 1502462, Grievance No. 1502945, Grievance No. 15-06810—were cancelled or 

denied in order to prevent him from obtaining relief with regard to his claim that the cancellation 

of Grievance No. 14-03104 was retaliatory.8 However, as discussed supra, Defendants are 

entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that the cancellation of Grievance No. 14-03104 

was retaliatory.9 

Second, the cancellation or denial of these grievances was authorized by the relevant 

prison regulations which serve the legitimate penological purpose of the efficient disposition of 

 

8 The Court does not address whether the denial of Grievance No. 15-00017 was retaliatory 

because Plaintiff has stated that he does not contend that denial was retaliatory. Dkt. No. 48 at 1. 

9 Grievance No. 14-03409 alleged that Defendant Townsend’s cancellation of Grievance No. 14-

03104 was retaliatory. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 17–18, 22, 24. The three subsequent grievances—

Grievance No. No. 1502462, Grievance No. 1502945, Grievance No. 15-06810—challenged the 

cancellation of Grievance No. 14-03409, arguing that Grievance No. 14-03409 was not 

duplicative; that its cancellation prevented him from exhausting his administrative remedies with 

respect to Defendant Townsend’s retaliation; and that prison officials had not investigated his 

claims regarding to Defendant Townsend’s retaliation.

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 20 of 22
21

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

inmate grievances. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 3084.1, 3084.4, and 3084.5. Grievance No. 14-

03409 was cancelled as duplicative as authorized by Section 3084.6(c)(2). Grievance No. 

1502462 and Grievance No. 15-06810 were both denied as untimely, as authorized by Section 

3084.6(c)(4). Grievance No. 1502945 was denied because it relitigated a previously filed 

grievance, as authorized by Section 3084.6(c)(2). Ultimately, all of Plaintiff’s follow-up 

grievances were not viable, because he had been granted the requested relief—correction of the 

chrono—at the first level of review of the original grievance. There is no triable issue of fact as to 

Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation.

The Court therefore GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect to 

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants’ handling of Grievance No. 14-03409, Grievance No. 1502462, 

Grievance No. 1502945, and Grievance No. 15-06810 constituted retaliation for protected activity, 

in violation of the First Amendment.

C. Qualified Immunity

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 

civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 

U.S. 800, 818 (1982). To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified 

immunity, courts must consider (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, 

and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. 

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. Courts may “exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the 

two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the 

circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Id. at 236. Because there was no violation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights with respect to the handling of Grievance No. 14-03409, Grievance 

No. 14-03104, Grievance No. 15-00017, Grievance No. 1502462, Grievance No. 1502945, or 

Grievance No. 15-06810, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

//

//

//

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 21 of 22
22

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether

Defendants’ handling of Grievance No. 14-03104, Grievance No. 14-03409, Grievance No. 

1502462, Grievance No. 1502945, or Grievance No. 15-06810 violated the First Amendment. 

Defendants’ second summary judgment motion is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 45. The Clerk shall 

terminate Dkt. No. 45; enter judgment in favor of Defendants Townsend, Voong, and Sandoval; 

and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/29/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01319-HSG Document 58 Filed 03/29/19 Page 22 of 22