Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00868/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00868-1/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

KENNETH PAUL YORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00868-JST (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 35

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), has filed a pro se complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was deprived of various basic needs while placed on 

contraband surveillance watch in February 2011, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. Docket No. 35. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is 

GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated:

Since 2008, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has 

handled medical grievances separately from nonmedical grievances. Docket No. 19 at 2. Medical 

grievances are submitted on pink 602 forms (now labeled 602-HC to designate a health care 

grievance) while nonmedical grievances are submitted on green 602 forms. Id. The Health Care 

Appeals Office (“HC Appeals Office”) conducts the first-level and second-level review of medical 

grievances, and the Inmate Correspondence and Appeals Branch (formerly named the Office of 

Third Level Appeals – Health Care) handles the third-level review. Id. Nonmedical grievances 

are reviewed by the Institutional Appeals Office (“IAO”). Id. at 3 and Docket No. 20 at 2. 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 11
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

Nonmedical grievances are reviewed at the first level by the IAO. Docket No. 20 at 2. A secondlevel review is performed by the warden or someone at a similar level (Warden’s Level), and the 

third-level review is conducted by a designated representative of the CDCR Secretary (Director’s 

Level). Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.7(d)(2) and (3) (2014).

On February 23, 2011, an inmate-manufactured weapon was discovered in Plaintiff’s cell 

during a random search. Docket No. 21, Ex. C. As a result, Plaintiff was charged with the 

attempted manufacture of a deadly weapon and placed in Contraband Surveillance Watch 

(“CSW”) pending the recovery of contraband. Id. at Exs. C and D and Docket No. 1 at 3. 

Prisoners are placed in CSW when prison officials have reason to believe that the prisoner has 

concealed contraband in his body, the prisoner refuses to surrender the contraband, and a 

physician has determined that physical removal of the contraband may be hazardous to the health 

and safety of the prisoner. CDCR Operations Manual § 52050.23 (2011). Prisoners placed in 

CSW are kept in a controlled isolated setting under constant visual observation. Id. Correctional 

officers are required to search the fecal matter of prisoners placed in CSW for contraband. Id. at 

§ 52050.23.7. Prisoners are retained on CSW until it is determined that the prisoner is contraband 

free, either when the prisoner voluntarily surrenders the contraband, the contraband is retrieved by 

natural means, or the prisoner completes at least three bowel movements free of contraband. Id. at 

§§ 52050.23 and 52050.23.8. 

On March 24, 2011, Plaintiff submitted an administrative grievance on a green nonmedical 

grievance form (CDCR Form 602). Docket No. 1 at 9 and Docket No. 27 at 2. Plaintiff 

complained that CSW conditions and procedures were “torturous” in violation of state, federal, 

and international laws. Docket No. 1 at 9–11. He complained specifically about being restricted 

by handcuffs, waist chains, and leg restraints; being required to either sit or stand on hard concrete 

for eighteen hours a day; not being provided with requested pain medication or sleeping pills; 

being subjected to continuous intense lighting 24 hours a day; being deprived of privacy while 

defecating or urinating; being forced to defecate and urinate in front of female correctional 

officers; and being subjected to unhygienic conditions in his CSW cell. Id. at 10. Plaintiff 

requested a medical “chrono” ordering him alternative CSW procedures to accommodate his 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 11
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

medical issues, and monetary damages from each correctional officer who engaged in the 

unconstitutional CSW acts. Id. at 10–11.

Plaintiff’s grievance was received by the IAO and rejected because the appeal action 

requested was unclear. The rejection states: 

The enclosed documents are being returned to you for the following reasons:

Your appeal has been rejected pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, 

Section (CCR) 3084.6(b)(13). The appeal is incomplete. Your appeal is being returned for 

the following reason(s): 

The appeal action requested is not clear with the exception of the request for money. 

What is the request for a medical chrono for CSW about? 

Docket No. 20, Ex. B at 1. 

The parties disagree as to whether Plaintiff resubmitted the grievance. Defendants claim 

that Plaintiff did not resubmit the grievance “because there is no record of any subsequent 

rejection or acceptance of such a grievance” and that this grievance was forwarded to the HC 

Appeals Office because it raised medical issues. Docket No. 20 at 4–5. Plaintiff, however, claims 

that he resubmitted the grievance by adding additional clarifying language to Section B of the 602 

originally submitted. Docket No. 38 at 5. Plaintiff appears to be claiming that the initial 602 

submitted did not have a second paragraph, and that the second paragraph was added in response 

to the IAO rejection. The second paragraph in Section B of the 602 states: “My request for a 

medical chrono for ‘CSW’ is about being issued a medical chrono for ‘CSW’ because of my 

medical issues. The restraints used during ‘CSW’ cause me pain because of my medical issues. 

That is why I described different procedures I am willing to consent to like x-rays, forced anal 

extractions, etc.” Docket No. 1 at 10. 

The parties agree that the grievance made its way to the HC Appeals Office. Defendants 

state that because the grievance raised medical concerns, the IAO forwarded it to the HC Appeals 

Office and attached a pink medical grievance form to it (CDCR Form 602-HC). Id. The 

grievance was received by the HC Appeals Office on April 5, 2011. Id. at 3, 12 and 17. Plaintiff 

argues that the fact that the grievance was forwarded to the HC Appeals Office proves that he did 

resubmit the grievance. Docket No. 38 at 5–6. He states that the grievance was returned to him 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 11
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

along with the rejection letter and that if he had not resubmitted the grievance, the IAO would 

have been unable to forward it to the HC Appeals Office. Id.

On July 22, 2011, Plaintiff’s grievance was denied by the HC Appeals Office at the first 

level in a “First Level Reviewer’s Response.” Docket No. 19 at 17. The response stated that 

Plaintiff’s grievance set forth three requests and explained why each request was denied. The 

response stated that Plaintiff’s first request “[t]o be issued a medical chrono for contraband 

surveillance watch” was denied because a nurse’s examination and x-rays did not show any 

medical issues requiring a medical chrono. Id. The response stated that Plaintiff’s second request 

“[t]o be given alternate procedures for contraband surveillance watch due to medical issues” was 

denied because “there were no medical issues identified at the time of [Plaintiff’s] evaluation 

requiring alternate procedures for contraband surveillance watch.” Id. Plaintiff’s third request for 

$5,000 from each person who participated in the contraband surveillance watch was denied 

because monetary compensation is beyond the scope of the prison appeals process. Id. The 

response did not address Plaintiff’s claim that the CSW conditions violated his constitutional 

rights. Id.

On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff appealed the first-level denial on two grounds. He stated that 

the reviewer failed to address the violation of his constitutional rights and that medical staff failed 

to perform the full medical evaluation sufficient to conclude that he did not require a medical 

chrono. Docket No. 19 at 12, 16. In his response, Plaintiff specifically asked, “How come none 

of the multiple Constitutional violations complained of have been addressed in the denial?” Id. at 

16. 

On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff’s appeal was rejected for exceeding the attachment 

limits,1and for changing the focus of the grievance to an entirely new issue. Docket No. 19 at 23–

25. Plaintiff was informed that his appeal could not go forward unless he could show that the 

above issues were inaccurate. Id. at 23, 25.

Plaintiff responded via a written letter that was received by the HC Appeals Office on 

 

1 California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3084.6(b)(5) limits inmates to one CDCR Form 

602-A (08/09) Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form Attachment per appeal.

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 11
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

October 18, 2011. Docket No. 19 at 26. Plaintiff denied attaching more than one 602-A form, 

explaining that the other attachments were supporting documents, which was allowed under the 

applicable regulations. He also denied changing the focus of his grievance:

My appeal does not contain a change to my initial action requested ... [nor] has my 

appeal changed to a new issue that would violate Title 15, 3084.6(b)(16) as you 

claim. If so I ask that you clearly state . . . and show where this change to my 

initial action requested has occurred. Because if what you have alleged is correct, 

then why was my appeal not previously rejected for this reason? Seeing as how my 

action requested is only addressed one time during the original filing of my 602. 

And not again as the 602 process continues.

Id. 

The HC Appeals Office then accepted Plaintiff’s grievance for review, Docket No. 19 at 4, 

and on October 31, 2011, Plaintiff’s grievance was denied at the second level in a “Second Level 

Reviewer’s Response,” id. at 18. The second-level response denied his request for a full medical 

evaluation on the same grounds as the first appeal was denied. Id. In describing the appeal issue, 

the second-level response also stated: “You state your constitutional rights were violated and have 

not been addressed in this appeal.” Id. However, the second-level response failed to discuss 

Plaintiff’s constitutional violations beyond this mention. Id. 

Plaintiff appealed his second-level denial, and his appeal was denied at the third level on 

February 16, 2012, by the Chief of the California Correctional Health Care Services. Docket No. 

19 at 19–20. In this third-level response, Plaintiff’s appeal issues were summarized as follows:

Your CDCR 602-HC submitted on March 24, 2011, indicated you were sent to 

contraband surveillance watch and the conditions/procedures of contraband 

surveillance were torturous. You told custody staff about your pain and medical 

issues and asked for alternative procedures. 

You requested the following:

 To be issued a medical chrono for contraband surveillance watch to include 

alternative procedures such as x-rays and forced anal extractions

 To receive monetary compensation in the amount of $5,000.00 from each 

person who participated in and upheld the unconstitutional act.

Id. at 19. The third-level response denied Plaintiff’s request for a medical chrono, noting that 

Plaintiff had undergone three medical examinations since his grievance was filed and that there 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 5 of 11
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

was no medical indication for chronos or alternate CSW procedures. Id. at 19–20. Plaintiff was 

also informed that CSW procedures were custody issues and would not be addressed in a health 

care appeal. Id. at 20. Plaintiff was directed to submit a separate appeal to the Institutional 

Appeals Office if he wished to appeal CSW procedures. Id. Plaintiff was informed that this thirdlevel denial exhausted Plaintiff’s available administrative remedies. Id. 

Following this denial, Plaintiff spent the next year trying to obtain copies of the procedures 

and rules governing CSW (Docket No. 1 at 14–15) and to review his file (id. at 16–26) in 

preparation for filing a lawsuit regarding the constitutional violations he suffered while on CSW.

Plaintiff filed this action on February 26, 2013.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal 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)). 

For purposes of summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 6 of 11
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

favorable to the nonmoving party; 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). 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., Inc., v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

Because Plaintiff is representing himself pro se and has signed his pleadings under penalty 

of perjury, the Court treats them as evidence for the purpose of summary judgment. See Jones v. 

Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399–

1400 (9th Cir. 1998) (verified motions function as affidavits and are admissible to oppose 

summary judgment); Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 n.10 (9th Cir. 1995) (pleading 

counts as “verified” if the drafter states under penalty of perjury that the contents are true and 

correct). 

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that must now be 

raised in a motion for summary judgment. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.

2014) (en banc). In bringing such a motion, the defendant has the initial burden to prove “that 

there was an available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available 

remedy.” Id. at 1172. If the defendant carries that burden, “the burden shifts to the prisoner 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. The 

ultimate burden of proof remains with the defendant, however. Id. “If material facts are disputed, 

summary judgment should be denied, and the district judge rather than a jury should determine the 

facts.” Id. at 1166.

B. Analysis

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires prisoners to exhaust all of their 

available administrative remedies prior to filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 

1997(e) (2014), unconst’l on other grounds, Siggers-El v. Barlow, 433 F. Supp. 2d 811, 813 (E.D.

Mich. 2006). In order to properly exhaust his or her administrative remedies, a prisoner’s 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 7 of 11
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

“grievance . . . need not contain every fact necessary to prove each element of an eventual legal 

claim. The primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its 

resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 

2009). Whether an inmate’s grievance satisfies the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is determined 

by the prison’s own grievance process. Griffin, 557 F.3d at 1120.

The State of California provides its inmates the right to administratively appeal 

“departmental policies, decisions, actions, conditions, or omissions that have a material adverse 

effect on the welfare of inmates and parolees.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a) (2014). In 

order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must generally 

proceed through three levels of appeal: (1) a written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form 

describing the specific issue under appeal and the relief requested, id. § 3084.2; (2) a second-level 

appeal to the institution head or designee, id. § 3084.7(b) and (d)(2); and (3) a third-level appeal to 

the Director of the California Department of Corrections, id. § 3084.7(c) and (d)(3). A final 

decision at the director’s level satisfies the exhaustion requirement under the PLRA. See id. at § 

3084.7(d)(3). Medical grievances are processed separately from nonmedical grievances. Docket

No. 19 at 2. To exhaust medical grievances, prisoners must pursue administrative remedies 

through the HC Appeals Office. Id. To exhaust nonmedical grievances, prisoners must pursue 

administrative remedies through the IAO. Id. 

Plaintiff does not dispute that there is an available administrative remedy, so the Court 

turns to the question of whether Plaintiff exhausted that remedy. Defendants argue that Plaintiff 

has only exhausted his medical claim regarding his request to, in the future, be provided with 

alternatives to CSW procedures due to his medical issues. Defendants state that Plaintiff has not 

exhausted the claim at issue in this litigation: that he was deprived of various basic needs while on 

CSW in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff argues that both his request for alternative 

CSW procedures and his allegation that CSW conditions were unconstitutional were presented in 

the same grievance. Therefore, argues Plaintiff, he exhausted both claims when his grievance was 

denied at the third level by the Chief of the California Correctional Health Care Services. 

Plaintiff’s belief that he has exhausted his administrative remedies for his constitutional 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 8 of 11
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

claim is mistaken. It is undisputed that the administrative remedies for nonmedical grievances are 

distinct from those for medical grievances. Exhaustion of a nonmedical grievance requires 

submitting it to the IAO and appealing it through all three levels of review, culminating in a 

review by the designated representative of the Secretary of the CDCR. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 

15, § 3084.7 and CDCR Operations Manual § 54100.13.3. Plaintiff’s claim regarding the 

constitutionality of CSW procedures was submitted only for first-level review at the IAO, and 

afterwards Plaintiff incorrectly appealed it via the health care grievance system. 

Plaintiff’s erroneous belief that he has exhausted administrative remedies is due in part to 

prison officials’ failure to follow prison regulations. Prison regulations require that the first-level 

and second-level response “accurately describe the matter under appeal and fully address the relief 

requested. . . . If the decision is a partial grant of the appellant’s requested action(s), the response 

shall clearly state which action(s) or relief has been granted, granted in part, or denied, and shall 

also state the action taken.” CDCR Operations Manual § 54100.15. The first-level and secondlevel responses to his grievance failed to address his claim regarding the constitutionality of CSW 

procedures and failed to inform Plaintiff that this claim could not be addressed by the HC Appeals 

Office. Pursuant to CDCR regulations, the first-level response should have accurately described 

that Plaintiff was both seeking a medical chrono for alternative CSW procedures and challenging 

the constitutionality of CSW procedures. Additionally, the first-level response should have 

specified that it would not be considering Plaintiff’s constitutional claim. Instead, the first-level 

response fails to mention Plaintiff’s constitutional claim at all. Docket No. 19 at 17. 

Plaintiff diligently attempted to ensure that prison officials addressed his claim of 

constitutional violations. In appealing the first-level response, he noted that none of his 

allegations regarding the unconstitutionality of CSW procedures had been addressed and 

questioned why. Id. at 16. The second-level response did not address this allegation, as required 

by prison regulations, though it did accurately note that Plaintiff had raised this issue in his appeal. 

Id. at 18. Due to the prison officials’ failure to either deny the claim or clearly state what other 

action was being taken — as required by prison procedures for processing grievances — Plaintiff 

reasonably assumed at this point in the administrative remedy process that he was pursuing the 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 9 of 11
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

appropriate administrative remedy for his claim regarding constitutional violations.

However, the third-level response clearly informed Plaintiff that any challenges to CSW 

procedures could not be addressed in a health care appeal: “Procedures related to contraband 

surveillance watch is a custody issue and as such will not be addressed in a health care appeal; you 

will need to submit a separate appeal to the Institution Appeal Office if you wish to appeal this 

issue.” Docket No. 19 at 20 (sic). The third-level response continued on and explained why 

Plaintiff’s requests regarding medical treatment and medical chronos were being denied. Id. The 

response concluded by stating: “This decision exhausts your available administrative remedies.” 

Id. The third-level response does not specify that administrative remedies were satisfied only for 

Plaintiff’s medical claim, but to assume that administrative remedies had also been satisfied for 

Plaintiff’s constitutional claim would be to ignore the third-level response’s clear instruction 

otherwise. Despite this clear instruction, Plaintiff failed to appeal his claim regarding CSW 

procedures to the IAO. 

The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of 

the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 

731, 739 (2001)). “The obligation to exhaust ‘available’ remedies persists as long as some remedy 

remains ‘available.’” Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff still has an 

available remedy. 2 He may finish appealing his constitutional claim through the IAO. 3

 

2

The Court finds that this remedy is still available despite the requirement that appeals be

submitted within 30 calendar days of the prisoner’s receipt of an unsatisfactory response to an 

appeal. CDCR Operations Manual § 54100.16. The appeals coordinator or third-level Appeals 

Chief has the discretion to accept an appeal beyond the 30-day policy where there is “compelling 

evidence” of “exceptional circumstances” that support the conclusion that the appeal should be 

subject to further review. Id.

3

If Plaintiff resubmits his grievance regarding constitutional violations to the IAO and the 

grievance is rejected for being untimely, there is the possibility that his failure to exhaust should 

be excused due to prison officials’ failure to follow prison procedures and inform him at the first 

and second level that this claim could not be considered by the HC Appeals Office. See, e.g., 

Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that the prison officials’ mistake 

rendered prisoner’s administrative remedies effectively unavailable and excusing prisoner’s 

untimely filing of an appeal), distinguished on other grounds by Albino, 697 F.3d at 1033–35; see 

also Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) (suggesting a prisoner is excused 

from the exhaustion requirement when “prison officials obstruct[ ] his attempts to exhaust” or 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 10 of 11
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

The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to provide evidence showing that “there is something in 

his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies 

effectively unavailable to him.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. Plaintiff has made no such showing 

because he believes (incorrectly) that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. Accordingly, 

the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s claim that CSW 

procedures violated his Eighth Amendment rights is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2002) (proper course in claims dismissed 

due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies is dismissal without prejudice to refiling).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 35) is 

GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new action after exhausting California’s prison 

administrative process. See, e.g., McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1200–01. Defendants’ request for 

judicial notice (Docket No. 36) is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

“procedures for processing grievances weren’t followed by prison officials”). But see Woodford, 

548 U.S. at 90–91 (“Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other 

critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing 

some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.”). However, until Plaintiff exhausts his 

available remedies, any such discussion is premature. 

Case 3:13-cv-00868-JST Document 46 Filed 02/09/15 Page 11 of 11