Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02475/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02475-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

17cv2475-CAB-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PARAMO, Warden,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv2475-CAB-NLS

ORDER REGARDING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 

No. 21], OBJECTIONS TO REPORT 

[Doc. No. 22], MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 

9], and MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 

No. 10]

Plaintiff Kenneth Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

informa pauperis, filed his Complaint in this case on December 8, 2017, alleging 

Defendants R. Brown, E. Garza, A. Khan, and D. Paramo (“Defendants”) violated his 

rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983. [Doc. No. 1.] On May 21, 2018, Defendants filed a 

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies [Doc. No. 9] 

as well as a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim [Doc. No. 

10]. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 11, 2018. [Doc. No. 18.] No reply was 

filed.

On January 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report and 

Recommendation: (1) denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and (2) 

granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss (the “Report”). [Doc. 

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv2475-CAB-NLS

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

No. 21.] On February 12, 2019, Defendants filed objections to the Report, but only as to 

the motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 22.] Plaintiff has not filed a reply.1 

Having reviewed the matter de novo and for the reasons set forth below, the Court 

DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report, GRANTS the motion for summary judgment and 

DENIES AS MOOT the motion to dismiss.

REVIEW OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of 

a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a)636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 

recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 

1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc).

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Summary Judgment.2

Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 

because he failed to take his grievance to the Third Level of review. [Doc. No. 9-1 at 12-

14.] Plaintiff argues that he did not fail to exhaust administrative remedies because his 

Second-Level review was “granted” and therefore he was not required to reach the Third 

Level of review. [Doc. No. 18 at 9.]

The Report sets forth the legal standard for exhaustion and the California 

Department of Corrections’ administrative appeals process. [Doc. No. 21 at 7-8.] As the 

 

1 Plaintiff was given an extension of time until March 26, 2019 to file a reply. [Doc. No. 24.]

2 The Report accurately sets forth the Factual Background and Legal Standards for Motion for Summary 

Judgment, and those sections of the Report are incorporated herein. [Doc. No. 21 at 3-7.]

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv2475-CAB-NLS

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

Report correctly noted, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PRLA”) requires that the 

prisoner exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available.” 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

And while the Report correctly sets forth that there “appears to be some variation in how 

the various courts within this district interpret what is ‘available’” [Doc. No. 21 at 9], in 

Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit made clear that the 

“obligation to exhaust ‘available’ remedies persists as long as some remedy remains 

‘available.’” In Plaintiff’s situation, while the Second Level review was “granted,” 

Plaintiff did not get the remedy he was seeking and, therefore, he should have appealed to 

the Third Level. 

Plaintiff’s claim consists of two components: (1) Plaintiff was wrongfully left off

the (2017) Ramadan list; (2) prisoners should not have been permitted to run Islamic 

services, which should have been run by the Chaplain himself, and should not have been 

permitted to modify the Ramadan list. [Doc. No. 1 at 14-15.] The First Level review, 

which was “granted,” stated that (1) “Mr. Brown agreed to work with the Men’s 

Advisory Council (MAC) to help educate the inmate population on proper procedures 

during religious events,” and (2) “You will be added to next year’s [2018] Ramadan list.” 

[Doc. No. 1 at 15.] Nothing was said about giving Plaintiff any remedy for being left off 

the 2017 list, and nothing was said about making sure the Chaplain regularly attends the 

services.3

Plaintiff then filed a Second Level review, again asserting the following claims: (1) 

“Inmates facilitating regular Muslim services prevent [Plaintiff] from attending; (2) Have 

the Chaplain attend regular services for Muslim inmates.” [Doc. No. 1 at 14.] The 

Second Level review, which again was “granted,” stated that (1) “[t]he institution will 

work with the Inmate Advisory Council (IAC) to help educate the inmate population on 

 

3

In fact, by stating that Mr. Brown would work with the MAC to help educate the inmate population on 

proper procedures during religious events, this confirmed that inmates would continue to run the Islamic 

services.

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv2475-CAB-NLS

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

proper procedures for regularly scheduled services; (2) Due to that Muslim services have 

to be held on a specific time and day, on all six facilities, it is impossible for [the 

Chaplain] to attend all the services. However, the institution is currently recruiting 

Muslim volunteers to help services.” Id. Once again, nothing was said about giving 

Plaintiff a remedy for being left off the 2017 Ramadan list, and Plaintiff was specifically 

told that the Chaplain would not regularly attend services for Muslim inmates and that 

prisoners would continue to run the Islamic services.

4

The fact that Plaintiff was not satisfied with the result at the Second Level, and 

therefore had some relief available at the Third Level, is shown by the claims and 

requests for relief in his Complaint: (1) Plaintiff seeks damages for allegedly being

wrongfully denied the right to participate in 2017 Ramadan5; and (2) Plaintiff seeks an 

injunction prohibiting prisoners from being allowed to run services for Muslim inmates in 

lieu of the Chaplain. [Doc. No. 1 at 3, 4 and 7.] At no time during the First or Second 

Appeal was Plaintiff told that he would be provided any relief for missing the 2017

Ramadan, and Plaintiff was specifically told that the Chaplain would not attend regular 

services, and that the prisoners would continue to run the Islamic services. By making 

these claims for relief in the Complaint, Plaintiff admits that he was not satisfied with the 

result at the Second Level and, therefore, had further relief available at the Third Level.6

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report as to motion for 

summary judgment, and the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED on the 

grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

/ / / / /

/ / / / / 

 

4

 In addition, Plaintiff was specifically advised in the Second Level review that he could further pursue 

this issue at the Third Level of review. [Doc. No. 1 at 14.]

5 Plaintiff has also waived this claim because he did not pursue it at the Second Level of review.

6 As a result, there is no triable issue of fact, and summary judgment is appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); 

Celotex. Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv2475-CAB-NLS

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

B. Motion to Dismiss.

Given that the motion for summary judgment has been granted, the Court does not 

reach the issues presented in the motion to dismiss and, therefore, it is DENIED AS 

MOOT.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court rules as follows:

1. Defendants’ Objections [Doc. No. 22] are SUSTAINED;

2. The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report [Doc. No. 21] as to the motion 

for summary judgment;

3. The motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 9] is GRANTED;

4. The motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 10] is DENIED AS MOOT.

5. The Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT for Defendants and CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-02475-CAB-NLS Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5