Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01448-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff’s civil rights action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the 

administrative remedies. (ECF No. 55.) 

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff argues, by way of notice of supplemental authority filed on September 18, 2015, after 

the Findings and Recommendation were filed and adopted in full, that he was unable to file his appeal 

at the appropriate level because he feared for his safety if he did so and was subject to “threats” of 

retaliation. 

On September 24, 2015, Plaintiff also filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

56(e) to alter or amend the judgment. (ECF No. 58.) Defendant filed a response on October 2, 2015. 

(ECF No. 59.) 

MUHAMMAD NURIDDIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ESTRELLA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 59(e) AND MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION UNDER RULE 60(b)

[ECF No. 58]

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 60 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 5
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

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment 

must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. Plaintiff’s motion is timely under this 

Rule. Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies 

relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is 

to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th 

Cir. 2008). A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 

is an intervening change in the controlling law. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III.

DISCUSSION

In his present motion, Plaintiff contends the “record is clear” that he “was ambushed with 

retaliation by prison officials immediately upon filing the BP-8 attached to his objections, and at every 

moment thereafter, including further implied retaliation and threats of retaliation which made the filing 

of additional administrative remedies, specifically, a second BP-8 impossible.” (ECF No. 58, Mot. at 

¶ 4.) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff further contends that if this Court finds that Plaintiff failed to 

exhaustion the administrative remedies with respect to his retaliation claim, “the Court should make a 

finding as to whether or not that failure was justified based on the retaliation and threats of retaliation 

by prison officials which made filing a second and successive BP-8 unavailing.” (Id. ¶ 5.) 

In order to demonstrate that the failure to exhaust the administrative remedies may be excused 

based on threats by prison officials, plaintiff must show that:

“(1) the threat [of retaliation] actually did deter the plaintiff inmate form lodging a grievance or 

pursing a particular part of the process; and (2) the threat is one that would deter a reasonable 

inmate of ordinary firmness and fortitude from lodging a grievance or pursuing the part of the 

grievance process that the inmate failed to exhaust.” 

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 60 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 5
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

McBride v. Lopez, 791 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 

1085 (11th Cir. 2008). 

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged two separate claims, namely, an Eighth 

Amendment claim against officer Estrella for alleged sexual touching during a pat-down search, and a 

First Amendment retaliation against Lieutenant Miller, Associate Warden Bell, and Warden Rios who 

were alleged to have retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a grievance against officer Estrella. (ECF 

No. 16, Order at pp. 2-3.) The Eighth Amendment claim against officer Estrella was dismissed, and 

the action was permitted to proceed only on the claim for retaliation under the First Amendment. (Id.

at 6.) 

As stated in the Findings and Recommendation, at the time Plaintiff filed the instant action, he 

had utilized the BOP’s administrative remedy program only once.1 (ECF No. 51, Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) at 5.) The only record of Plaintiff filing an administrative remedy at any 

level prior to initiating the instant action was a Central Office appeal, on form BP-11, in which 

Plaintiff alleged “inappropriate contact by staff.” The appeal was designated 636907-A1. (Id.) There 

is no record in SENTRY of any BP-9 or BP-10, on this or any other issue, filed by Plaintiff at any time 

prior to submission of this BP-11. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s BP-11 was received on April 5, 2011, and rejected on April 27, 2011, with rejection 

codes WRL and INS. (F&R at 5.) The WRL and INS codes denote that Plaintiff was informed that he 

filed his appeal at the wrong level, and that he must first file a BP-9 at the United States Penitentiary 

prior to filing an appeal. (Id. at 6; see also 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(2) (providing that inmates cannot 

appeal issues not raised in lower level filings.) Plaintiff did not file a BP-9 as instructed. (Id.) 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any alleged threats by prison officials actually deterred him 

from filing an inmate grievance. Although Plaintiff does not provide specifics details of the alleged 

threats, such factual circumstances can be found in the first amended complaint in this action. In his 

 

1 Most recently (and well after the instant action was filed), on July 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a BP-9 at USP Atwater. 

(Vickers Decl. ¶ 6.) This BP-9 was designated 788376-F1. (Id.; Attach. 2.) The administrative appeal alleges that a staff 

member retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a complaint against her on April 28, 2014, by having him detained and sent to 

the Lieutenant’s office on June 12, 2014. (Id.; Attach. 2.) This appeal clearly has no relevance to this instant action 

because it involves a separate claim of retaliation that allegedly took place in 2014. (Id.) 

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 60 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 5
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

first amended complaint, Plaintiff contends that on November 5, 2010, he filed an informal complaint 

to his counselor relating to the sexual assault claim not present in this action. (ECF No. 14, First Amd. 

Compl. ¶ 29.) After submitting an informal complaint, Lieutenant Miller threatened Plaintiff to drop 

the complaint and not file further grievances or he would be buried in the security housing unit 

indefinitely. (Id. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff declined to obey Defendant Miller’s request and was placed in the 

security housing unit for filing the informal complaint against officer Estrella. (Id. ¶ 33.) Several days 

later, Plaintiff was threatened by an unidentified officer who denied Plaintiff’s release from the 

security housing unit and threatened Plaintiff to withdraw the grievance or he would remain the 

segregation for a long period of time. (Id. ¶¶ 34-36.) Defendants Rios and Bell also told Plaintiff that 

they could do nothing about his placement in the security housing unit unless he dropped the 

complaint against their fellow officer. (Id. ¶¶ 38-41.) Plaintiff remained in the security housing unit 

for a month and a half relating to the complaints against officer Estrella. (Id. ¶ 42.) 

First, there is not a sufficient basis to find that Plaintiff was actually deterred by prison 

officials’ alleged threats. Plaintiff claims he was threatened with placement and/or retention in the 

security housing unit, yet he failed to drop the prior grievance despite such threat. Second, the alleged 

threats were in relation to a complaint filed against an unrelated officer on an unrelated claim of sexual 

assault (not present in this action). Third, Plaintiff contends he was retained in the security housing 

unit for one and a half months from November 5, 2010. Yet, Plaintiff did not submit the grievance 

relating to his claim of retaliation until April 5, 2011-well after his release from the security housing 

unit and there is no basis to find that Plaintiff was actually deterred by the alleged threats. Based on 

these circumstances, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the exhaustion of the 

administrative remedies should be excused, and the evidence demonstrates only that he unilaterally

attempted to by-step the proper procedure in submitting a grievance and failed to follow the 

administrative procedure to re-submit the grievance at the proper level of review. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 60 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 5
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

IV.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and/or to alter the judgment is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 60 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 5