Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00283/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00283-1/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 

ALFRED R. SOSA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. TORRANCE,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-00283-WHO (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Alfred Sosa, who filed this pro se federal civil rights action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims that defendant J. Torrance, a Health Care Appeals Coordinator 

at Pelican Bay State Prison, violated his First Amendment rights by mishandling his 

inmate grievances, retaliating against him, and denying him access to the courts. Torrance

moves for summary judgment (Docket No. 59) because, among other grounds, Sosa failed 

to exhaust his claims prior to filing suit. There are no material facts in dispute on the issue 

of exhaustion. Torrance’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits 

demonstrate that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those 

which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a 

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying 

those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of 

a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must 

Case 3:12-cv-00283-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/26/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the 

moving party. On an issue for which the opposing party by contrast will have the burden 

of proof at trial, as is the case here, the moving party need only point out “that there is an 

absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go 

beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts 

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Court is 

concerned only with disputes over material facts and “[f]actual disputes that are irrelevant 

or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the 

court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 

F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of identifying, with 

reasonable particularity, the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. If the 

nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as 

a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (internal quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION 

I. Background 

In the operative complaint (Docket No. 15), Sosa alleges that (1) medical staff at 

Pelican Bay State Prison failed to provide him with timely and sufficient medical 

treatment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and (2) Torrance, an appeals coordinator 

at Pelican Bay, violated his First Amendment rights. Claim 1 was dismissed upon a 

motion by defendants (Docket No. 57), while Claim 2, the subject of the current motion for 

summary judgment, survived. In this surviving claim, Sosa alleges that Torrance 

improperly screened out his grievances, thereby preventing him from exhausting him 

claims. (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), Docket No 15, at 10.) These acts violated his First 

Amendment rights because they were retaliatory (Torrance also allegedly threatened to 

confiscate his grievance paperwork) and an attempt to prevent Sosa from having access to 

the courts. (Id.) 

The facts are undisputed unless specifically noted otherwise. Sosa filed a grievance 

Case 3:12-cv-00283-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/26/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in April 2011 in which he requested medical treatment for welts on his forehead, eye, and 

arms, complained about the lack of medical treatment up to that point, and asked for an 

optometrist appointment. (SAC, Ex. 1 at 1.) The grievance bypassed the informal level 

and was sent for the next stage of review. (Mot. for Summ. J. (“MSJ”) at 3.) In June, 

Torrance sent Sosa a notice informing him that his appeal was being processed, but that it 

would not be completed “within the specified time frame.” (Id., Ex. A, Torrance Decl. ¶ 

13.) Torrance asserts that she “was not reviewing Sosa’s appeal [at that time], and 

therefore [she] did not have control of the time of response.” (Id.) 

In August, Sosa’s request to see a doctor was granted, and he received medical 

examinations and treatment, including an appointment with an optometrist and an order for 

new glasses. (SAC, Ex. 3.) Nonetheless, Sosa appealed his grievance and raised new 

claims, specifically that he had had a heart attack brought on by the stress of having 

shingles, the vaccine for which medical staff had refused to give him. (Id., Ex. 4.) 

Torrance rejected the appeal because Sosa raised different complaints (heart attack, stress, 

shingles) than had appeared in the initial grievance (medical care for his welt and skin 

condition) and therefore had not been presented for review through the proper stages. (Id., 

Ex. 5.) Sosa appealed Torrance’s rejection while admitting that the grounds for his 

grievance had “changed somewhat.” (Id., Ex. 6.) This appeal was cancelled because Sosa 

was resubmitting a properly rejected appeal and had ignored the prison’s advice to correct 

his grievances. (Id., Ex. 7.) 

As noted above, Sosa alleges that Torrance violated his First Amendment rights by 

improperly screening out his appeals. It is undisputed, however, that Sosa never filed a 

grievance regarding his claims against Torrance. 

II. Administrative Exhaustion 

 If an inmate wishes to pursue a freestanding claim that a prison official mishandled 

his prison grievances, he must file a separate prison grievance that raises those claims. 

Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 (9th Cir. 2010). The problem with Sosa’s First 

Amendment claim is that he never filed a grievance over it. That is fatal to his case. 

Case 3:12-cv-00283-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/26/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Torrance’s motion for summary judgment provides evidence to support her 

assertion that Sosa failed to exhaust. (MSJ, Ex. B, Townsend Decl. ¶¶ 6 and 7.) In his 

opposition, Sosa does not dispute those facts. Instead, he argues that Torrance improperly 

handled his grievance appeals. 

Prisoners must properly exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in 

federal court. “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 

U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or 

other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and is 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 PLRA exhaustion requirement requires “proper 

exhaustion” of all available administrative remedies. Id. at 93. 

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

“any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the [CDCR] or its staff that the 

inmate . . . can demonstrate as having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, 

safety, or welfare.” 15 CCR § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available administrative 

remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: 

(1) informal review, submitted on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form; (2) first formal level 

appeal, to an institution appeals coordinator; (3) second formal level appeal, to the 

institution warden; and (4) third formal level appeal, to the Director of the CDCR. See

CCR § 3084.7; Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1264-65 (9th Cir. 2009). An inmate’s 

obligation to exhaust persists as long as some remedy is available; when that is no longer 

the case, the prisoner need not further pursue the grievance. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 

926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Here, it is undisputed that Sosa did not exhaust his administrative remedies on his 

First Amendment claims. He offers no reason excusing the exhaustion requirement. As a 

result, he has not shown evidence that precludes summary judgment. Simply repeating his 

allegations that Torrance mishandled his grievances is insufficient. Sapp, 623 F.3d at 824. 

Case 3:12-cv-00283-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/26/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all claims. 

PENDING MOTION 

Sosa’s “Stipulation With [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR Process ADR 

Certification” (Docket No. 58) is not a stipulation, defendant not having signed the 

document or otherwise indicated agreement with Sosa’s proposal. The Court construes the 

stipulation as a motion to refer the action for settlement. So construed, it is DENIED as 

moot. 

CONCLUSION

 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 59) is GRANTED as to all 

claims against J. Torrance. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Torrance, and in 

favor of N. Ikegbu, M.C. Sayre, K. Vail, and C. Williams, the defendants whose motion to 

dismiss the claims against them was granted in a prior order (Docket No. 57). 

The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 58 and 59, enter judgment in accordance 

with the instructions above, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00283-WHO Document 67 Filed 01/26/15 Page 5 of 5