Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01281-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMANUEL LEWIS BOONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAPIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SURREPLY

(ECF No. 32)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: EXHAUSTION

(ECF No. 26)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Background

Plaintiff Emanuel Lewis Boone (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Tapia and Felix for excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, Defendants Arroyo and Jimenez for failure to protect in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Defendants Tapia, Arroyo, and Jimenez for violation of 

the Due Process Clause.

On August 19, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his prisoner administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation 

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 1 of 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

2

Reform Act.

1

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en 

banc), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 968 (2014). (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on 

September 17, 2021, (ECF No. 29), Defendants filed a reply on September 24, 2021, (ECF No. 

30), and Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on October 19, 2021, (ECF No. 31). Defendants then filed a 

motion to strike Plaintiff’s unauthorized sur-reply, (ECF No. 32), and Plaintiff filed a response to 

the motion on November 15, 2021, (ECF No. 33).

The motion for summary judgment and motion to strike Plaintiff’s sur-reply are deemed 

submitted.2 Local Rule 230(l).

II. Legal Standards

A. Statutory Exhaustion Requirement

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that “[n]o 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 

required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the 

process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to 

all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of 

raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007); Albino, 

747 F.3d at 1166. “In the rare event that a failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, 

a defendant may move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Otherwise, 

the defendants must produce evidence proving the failure to exhaust, and they are entitled to 

summary judgment under Rule 56 only if the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, shows he failed to exhaust. Id.

1 Concurrent with this motion, Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for 

summary judgment. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th 

Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 26-1.)

2 These motions were dropped inadvertently by the Court’s CM/ECF reporting/calendaring system resulting in the 

prolonged delay in resolution.

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendants must first prove that there was an available administrative remedy and that 

Plaintiff did not exhaust that available remedy. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (citing Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172) (quotation marks omitted). The burden then shifts to 

Plaintiff to show something in his particular case made the existing and generally available 

administrative remedies effectively unavailable to her. Williams, 775 F.3d at 1191 (citing Albino, 

747 F.3d at 1172) (quotation marks omitted). The ultimate burden of proof on the issue of 

exhaustion remains with Defendants. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

B. Summary Judgment Standard

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment 

if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (quotation marks omitted); Albino, 

747 F.3d at 1166; Wash. Mut. Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each 

party’s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by 

(1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, 

documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the 

presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible 

evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may 

consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, although it is not required to do 

so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 

2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

The defendant bears the burden of proof in moving for summary judgment for failure to 

exhaust, Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166, and he must “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 his burden, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff “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. “If undisputed evidence 

viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner shows a failure to exhaust, a defendant is 

entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56.” Id. at 1166. However, “[i]f material facts are 

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 3 of 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

4

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

determine the facts.” Id.

III. Discussion

A. Summary of CDCR’s Administrative Review Process

At the relevant time, “[t]he California prison grievance system ha[d] three levels of 

review; an inmate exhausts administrative remedies by obtaining a decision at each level.” Reyes 

v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b) (repealed 

June 1, 2020) & Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010)). See also Cal. Code Regs. 

tit. 15, § 3084.7(d)(3) (“The third level review constitutes the decision of the Secretary of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on an appeal, and shall be conducted by 

a designated representative under the supervision of the third level Appeals Chief or equivalent. 

The third level of review exhausts administrative remedies....”) (repealed June 1, 2020).

Pursuant to this system, an inmate may appeal “any policy, decision, action, condition, or 

omission by the department or its staff that the inmate . . . can demonstrate as having a material 

adverse effect upon his . . . health, safety, or welfare.” Id. at § 3084.1(a).

The process was initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parolee Appeal. Id. at 

§ 3084.2(a). In the appeal form, prisoners must list all staff members involved and describe their 

involvement in the issue. Id. at § 3084.2(a)(3). If the inmate does not have the requested 

identifying information about the staff member, he must provide any other available information 

that would assist the appeals coordinator in making a reasonable attempt to identify the staff 

member in question. Id.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 4 of 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

5

B. Undisputed Material Facts (UMF)3

1. Plaintiff Emanuel Boone (CDCR No. AZ9584) is an inmate in the custody of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). (ECF No. 10, First 

Amended Compl., (“FAC”), p. 1; ECF No. 26-4 (“Johnson Decl.”) ¶ 3; ECF No. 26-5 

(“Keyfauver Decl.”) ¶ 3; ECF No. 26-6 (“Moseley Decl.”) ¶ 6.)

2. Plaintiff filed this action on September 9, 2020, regarding alleged incidents at North Kern 

State Prison (“NKSP”). (ECF No. 1, (“Compl.”).)

3. Plaintiff’s FAC alleges, among other things, the following:

On June 6, 2016, at NKSP at Delano, California, Plaintiff was assaulted by 

Defendant D. Tapia, a correctional officer. Tapia punched and kicked 

Plaintiff multiple times while Plaintiff was on the ground, handcuffed, and 

pepper sprayed while being held down by other officers. Defendants D. 

Arroyo and M. Jimenez, correctional officers, held Plaintiff down and 

failed to intervene while Tapia assaulted Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was later punched multiple times in the head and body by 

Defendant J. Felix, an I.S.U. correctional officer, while awaiting medical 

attention and while held in a stand up cage.

Following the assaults, Defendants Tapia, Arroyo, and Jimenez lied and 

falsified documents, and caused Plaintiff to face criminal charges in Kern 

County Superior Court, case number Df012821A. Charges were filed on 

April 18, 2017, and later dismissed on June 18, 2020.

Defendants conspired to violate the constitutional rights of incarcerated 

persons by subjecting them to excessive force, falsification of documents, 

referrals for criminal prosecution, solitary detention, and false allegations.

(See FAC, generally.)

4. In screening the FAC, the Court found Plaintiff stated a cognizable: (1) Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Tapia and Felix; (2) Eighth 

3

(ECF No. 26-3.) Plaintiff did not provide a separate statement of undisputed facts in his opposition. Local Rule 

260(a). As a result, Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in support of the motion for summary 

judgment is accepted except where brought into dispute by Plaintiff’s Opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment, signed under penalty of perjury. See Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393, 1399–1400 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(verified motion may be used as opposing affidavit if based on filer’s personal knowledge of specific facts which are 

admissible in evidence). Unless otherwise indicated, disputed and immaterial facts are omitted from this statement 

and relevant objections are overruled.

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 5 of 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

6

Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Arroyo and Jimenez for failing to 

protect Plaintiff while Defendant Tapia was engaging in alleged excessive force; and (3) 

Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Tapia, Arroyo, and Jimenez 

for fabricating evidence resulting in Plaintiff’s disciplinary segregation and criminal 

prosecution. The Court dismissed all other claims and defendants. (ECF Nos. 13, 15.)

5. An inmate appeal is initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602 (Form 602 or appeal). 

(Johnson Decl. ¶ 5; Keyfauver Decl. ¶ 5); Cal Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a).4

6. Inmates must follow the procedures set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 15, 

sections 3084.1 through 3085, which includes describing the problem and action requested 

in the appeal form. The appeals process has three levels of review. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 5; 

Keyfauver Decl. ¶ 5; Moseley Decl. ¶ 4.)

7. At the first level of review, CDCR form 602 appeals are submitted to the appeals 

coordinator at the institution. The appeals coordinator may bypass the first level under 

certain circumstances. If the inmate is not satisfied with the decision at the first level, he 

may appeal to the second level. The second level must be completed before the inmate 

may appeal to the third level. The third level of review constitutes the decision of the 

Secretary of CDCR and is conducted under the supervision of the third level Appeals 

Chief or equivalent. A decision at the third level review exhausts administrative remedies. 

To properly exhaust an administrative grievance, an inmate must pursue his appeals 

through all levels of the administrative appeal process unless excused from one of the 

levels under Title 15. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 6; Keyfauver ¶ 6; Mosely Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 6); Cal. 

Code Regs. Tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, 3084.7.

8. Inmates are required to list the staff members and the date of that staff member’s 

involvement in the issue under appeal. If the inmate does not have the requested 

identifying information about the staff member(s), he shall provide any other available 

information that would assist the appeals coordinator in making a reasonable attempt to 

identify the staff member(s) in question. The inmate shall state all facts known and 

4 All citations to Title 15 refer to the versions in effect in 2016.

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 6 of 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

7

available to him/her regarding the issue being appealed at the time of submitting the 

Inmate/Parolee Appeal forms. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 7; Keyfauver Decl. ¶ 7); Cal. Code Regs. 

Tit. 15, §§ 3084.2(a)(3), 3084.2(a)(4).

9. When an inmate submits an appeal that does not comply with regulations governing the 

appeal process, an appeals coordinator will reject and return the appeal with the reason for 

the rejection and provide instructions to correct the defect, if correction is possible. An 

appeal that is cancelled cannot be resubmitted, but an inmate may appeal the cancellation 

if he/she feels the cancellation is in error. An appeal may be rejected or cancelled for the 

reasons outlined in California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 3084.6(b) and (c), 

including expiration of time limits, allegations that lack factual evidence and specific 

detail, and exceeding the allowable number of appeals filed in a 14 calendar day period. 

If an appeal is rejected or cancelled at any level, it is not exhausted. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 8; 

Moseley Decl. ¶ 4); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.6(b), (c), and (e).

10. An appeal must be received by the appeals coordinator within 30 calendar days of: (1) the 

occurrence of the event or decision being appealed, or (2) upon first having knowledge of 

the action or decision being appealed, or (3) upon receiving an unsatisfactory department 

response to an appeal filed. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 5; Keyfauver Decl. ¶ 5); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 

15, § 3084.8(b).

11. When an inmate submits an appeal relating to events at a different institution, the 

receiving institution will forward the appeal to the appropriate institution for review. 

(Johnson Decl. ¶ 18; Keyfauver Decl. ¶ 13.)

12. The Office of Appeals (“OOA”) receives, reviews, and maintains all non-medical inmate 

grievances at the third and final level of review. (Moseley Decl. ¶ 2.)

13. A final decision at the third level of review generally exhausts an inmate grievance. 

Rejection or cancellation of an appeal at any level does not exhaust administrative 

remedies. A request for the institution to modify or amend an appeal from the third level 

of formal review does not exhaust the appeal. (Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9; Moseley Decl. ¶ 2); 

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1.

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 7 of 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

8

14. Plaintiff was housed at NKSP from May 26, 2016 through June 10, 2016. CDCR and 

NKSP had an administrative review process for inmates at all times relevant to this 

lawsuit, which allows them to appeal any departmental decision, action, policy, omission, 

or condition that has an adverse material effect on the inmate’s welfare. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 

3; Moseley Decl. ¶¶ 2–4.)

15. Plaintiff submitted no grievances between May 23, 2016 and June 10, 2016 while housed 

at NKSP. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. A.)

16. Plaintiff was housed at Wasco State Prison (“WSP”) from June 10, 2016 through 

November 10, 2016. CDCR and WSP had an administrative grievance process for 

inmates at all times relevant to this lawsuit, which allows them to appeal any departmental 

decision, action, policy, omission, or condition that has an adverse material effect on the 

inmate’s welfare. (Keyfauver Decl. ¶ 3; Moseley Decl. ¶¶ 2–4.)

17. Plaintiff submitted no grievances between June 10, 2016 and November 10, 2016 while 

housed at WSP. (Keyfauver Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. A.)

18. Plaintiff was housed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) when he 

submitted Appeal Log Number NKSP-X-18-02786 (“Appeal”). NKSP received the 

Appeal on July 10, 2018. Plaintiff dated the Appeal June 24, 2018. (Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 17, 

19, Ex. B; Moseley Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 2.)

19. The Appeal alleges that on June 7, 2016, Defendant D. Tapia brutally beat Plaintiff for no 

reason and falsified documents. The Appeal states no allegations against Defendants J. 

Felix, D. Arroyo, or M. Jimenez. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 20; Moseley Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 2.)

20. Because California Code of Regulations Title 15, sections 3084.8(a) and (b) require an 

appeal be submitted within 30 calendar days, the Appeal was deemed untimely and 

rejected. On July 10, 2018, Correctional Counselor Johnson sent a CDCR Form 695 

Screening Form to Plaintiff advising him of the rejection of the appeal, but providing 

Plaintiff the opportunity to explain the reasons for the late submission, including when he 

was first interviewed by internal affairs regarding the allegations. (Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 21–

22, Ex. B.)

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 8 of 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

9

21. On September 11, 2018, the NKSP Inmate Appeal Office received Plaintiff’s response on 

the Form 695. In the response, Plaintiff stated he was interviewed by internal affairs at 

WSP approximately two months after the June 7, 2016 incident. Plaintiff also stated that 

he received additional information during the course of discovery in his then-pending 

criminal prosecution. Plaintiff acknowledged that this discovery occurred approximately 

763 days following the June 7, 2016 incident. (Id. ¶ 23, Ex. B.)

22. Correctional Counselor Johnson reviewed Plaintiff’s Form 695 response and the reasons 

provided for the late submission. The Appeal was deemed untimely, and was cancelled. 

(Id. ¶ 24, Ex. B); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(c)(4).

23. The NKSP Inmate Appeal Office did not find any other appeals submitted by Plaintiff 

during the relevant timeframe. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 25.)

24. The OOA keeps an electronic record of each offender’s appeal. When an appeal is 

received, it is assigned a log number and entered into a computer system. An appeal is 

reviewed and screened by the OOA. An appeal is screened out if it does not comply with 

the regulations governing the appeal process. An appeal is screened in, and answered 

substantively, if it complies with the governing regulations. The Appeal History Report 

details whether the appeal was screened out or screened in. If screened out, the Appeal 

History Report includes the reason. (Moseley Decl. ¶¶ 3–4, Ex. 1.)

25. Plaintiff submitted the Appeal to the OOA, which was received October 18, 2018, and 

assigned Appeal Log Number 1814674. The Appeal was screened out on January 24, 

2019 due to it being previously cancelled. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8, Exs. 1–2.)

26. Plaintiff submitted other appeals to the OOA which were accepted for review during the 

relevant time period but none were relevant to the FAC. Plaintiff also submitted appeals 

during the relevant time period that were screened out. (Id. ¶¶ 9–11, Exs. 3–9.)

C. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Sur-reply

Generally, parties do not have the right to file sur-replies, and motions are deemed 

submitted when the time to reply has expired. Local Rule 230(l). The Court generally views 

motions for leave to file sur-replies with disfavor. Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 9 of 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

10

2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Fedrick v. Mercedes–Benz USA, LLC, 366 F. 

Supp. 2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)). However, district courts have the discretion to either 

permit or preclude a sur-reply. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 

1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to permit “inequitable 

surreply”); JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008) (district 

court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to file sur-reply where it did not consider new 

evidence in reply); Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (new evidence in reply 

may not be considered without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond). In this Circuit, 

courts are required to afford pro se litigants additional leniency. E.g., Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 

F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva v. 

Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th 

Cir. 2010).

Here, Plaintiff did not seek leave of Court before filing his sur-reply. Defendants contend 

that they did not introduce new evidence or advance new arguments in their reply, Plaintiff’s 

“new found evidence” proffered in the sur-reply was known to Plaintiff when he filed his 

opposition, and the sur-reply should therefore be stricken from the record. In his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to strike the sur-reply, Plaintiff argues that when he received Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment, the prison was undergoing a mass search/lockdown and after his 

cell was searched, all of his legal work was in disarray. In fear that he would not meet the 

opposition deadline, and belief that he could file a sur-reply, Plaintiff filed his opposition brief 

and the sur-reply merely produces documents to support arguments already raised in the 

opposition.

In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and the apparent unavailability of the proffered 

documents at the time Plaintiff’s opposition was filed, the Court will exercise its discretion to not 

strike the evidence. The Court will consider the evidence presented.

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 10 of 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

11

D. Discussion

1. Parties’ Positions

Defendants argue that the undisputed facts show that Plaintiff’s claims were not properly 

exhausted before filing suit (or before filing the operative complaint), as required by the PLRA. 

While Plaintiff submitted Appeal NKSP-X-18-02686 regarding the claims in this action against 

Defendant Tapia, he did so more than two years after the incident in question. Plaintiff failed to 

justify the late submission, the Appeal was properly cancelled as untimely, and rather than 

appealing the cancellation, Plaintiff improperly submitted the appeal to the OOA. Plaintiff 

therefore failed to properly exhaust all his claims against Defendant Tapia. Plaintiff did not file 

any appeal referencing his claims against Defendants Felix, Arroyo, and Jimenez, and therefore 

failed to properly exhaust any claims against these defendants. Plaintiff has not met the 

requirements to be excused from the exhaustion requirement because the undisputed facts show 

that the administrative appeal process was available and the Appeal was properly cancelled 

pursuant to the regulations. To the extent that the Court finds any genuine disputes of material 

fact regarding exhaustion, Defendants request that the Court set a “preliminary proceeding” 

pursuant to Albino to resolve any such disputes before the parties proceed to the merits of this 

case.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that he filed a timely grievance in accordance with 

regulations by personally handing his grievance directly to a correctional officer while he was 

housed in solitary confinement/ASU while the incident at issue in this action was being 

investigated. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants deliberately threw away his appeal or 

intentionally did not respond to it. If Plaintiff filed all of the other grievances listed in 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, why wouldn’t he have done the same in this instance. 

Shortly after filing this initial grievance, Plaintiff was interviewed by Internal Affairs. Plaintiff 

asked Internal Affairs members when he would get a response for his grievance, or if they 

received it, and the response was: “That is why we are here & you should get a response soon.” 

Plaintiff also asked other officers, who stated he would eventually get a response or it may take 

some time. Citing CCR Title 15, section 3084.9(a)(5), Plaintiff further argues that his claims fall 

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 11 of 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

12

in the staff complaint category, and time limits shall not be imposed upon when an appellant may 

file a grievance regarding a staff complaint. Plaintiff has also waited over 2 years for a response 

to other complaints before, which is why he waited 2 years after the incident to file another 

grievance. Plaintiff attaches another grievance regarding prison staff taking his legal notes in 

regards to other grievances to show how prison personnel confiscated Plaintiff’s property and 

legal notes intentionally to hinder Plaintiff’s redress rights. Because Internal Affairs is part of the 

appeal process, it should be held that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, or attempted 

to, but Defendants failed to respond to a properly filed grievance at no fault of Plaintiff. 

Defendants knew of and investigated this incident and had ample opportunity to address them, 

and Plaintiff gave Defendants two chances via administrative remedies by following upon with 

the lost grievance after the initial grievance “went missing.” CDCR failed or deliberately refused 

to respond to Plaintiff’s complaints, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be 

denied.

In reply, Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to set forth any competent evidence to 

support his “belief” that the timely grievance he purportedly filed was lost or intentionally 

discarded. Further, Plaintiff’s explanations provided to the NKSP Appeals Office for the late 

submission contradict with the opposition. In the CDCR Form 695 Plaintiff states that he 

discovered witness statements in his criminal case approximately 683 days following the incident 

at issue, but did not state that he previously submitted a grievance, or that such a grievance was 

lost, discarded, or mishandled. Had Plaintiff submitted a timely grievance, he would have 

informed NKSP that he had done so, or appealed the cancellation of his 2018 grievance as 

untimely. The undisputed facts indicate that Plaintiff failed to timely and properly exhaust his 

claims, and that he was not excused from complying with the requirement to do so.

Plaintiff states in his sur-reply that not only did he file a conventional grievance in a 

timely manner, he also filed a habeas petition in regards to his grievances not being responded to. 

Immediately after the incident, Plaintiff not only filed a grievance in regards to the assault by 

Defendants, but he also filed a grievance in regards to his medical treatment after and injuries 

sustained from the incident. Although medical grievances are separate from institutional 

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 12 of 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

13

grievances, this further proves Plaintiff’s claims regarding his prompt and efficient filing of 

grievances. Plaintiff also filed a grievance with the U.S. Department of Justice in regards to the 

incident. If further discovery is granted and the Internal Affairs tape revealed, it would also show 

that Plaintiff inquired about his grievance. Plaintiff did not state in the Form 695 that he filed an 

initial grievance, because he stated it within the appeal itself, so there was no need. To support 

his arguments, Plaintiff attaches copies of: (1) a September 16, 2016 order from the Kern County 

Superior Court regarding a petition for writ of habeas corpus HC# 15224A; (2) a September 15, 

2016 second level response to Health Care Appeal WSP HC 16049867; and (3) an October 5, 

2016 letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (ECF No. 31, pp. 6–15.)

2. Defendants Felix, Arroyo, and Jimenez

Defendants assert, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that Plaintiff did not file any relevant 

appeals regarding his claims against Defendants Felix, Arroyo, and Jimenez. UMF 19. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims against these 

defendants, and these claims should be dismissed.

3. NKSP-X-18-02686

It is undisputed that NKSP-X-18-02686, signed and dated June 24, 2018 and received July 

10, 2018 by NKSP, was not filed within thirty days of the June 2016 incident between Plaintiff 

and Defendant Tapia. UMF 18. NKSP-X-18-02686 was rejected as untimely, but Plaintiff was 

provided a CDCR Form 695 to document the date he was interviewed by Internal Affairs and to 

explain the reason for the late submission. UMF 20. Plaintiff’s response was reviewed and 

NKSP-X-18-02686 was deemed untimely and cancelled. UMF 22. Rather than appealing the 

cancellation, Plaintiff submitted NKSP-X-18-02686 to the OOA, where it was screened out due to 

the previous cancellation. UMF 25.

Plaintiff provides no explanation for his failure to appeal the cancellation of NKSP-X-18-

02686, or for improperly submitting NKSP-X-18-02686 to the OOA after the cancellation. 

Further, to the extent Plaintiff argues in his opposition that his grievance was not subject to any 

time constraints as a staff complaint pursuant to Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.9(a)(5), that 

exception applied only to allegations of “staff sexual misconduct or staff sexual harassment,” 

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 13 of 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

14

which are not applicable to the allegations in this case. Accordingly, NKSP-X-18-02686 did not 

exhaust any of Plaintiff’s claims in this action.

4. Availability of Grievance Process

Plaintiff’s main argument is that the grievance process was made unavailable to him 

because the timely grievance he submitted immediately after the June 2016 incident was lost or 

deliberately misplaced. In support of this argument, Plaintiff provides a copy of NKSP-X-18-

02686, in which Plaintiff states:

Initially I filed a 602 form at Wasco State Prison. But after Internal Affairs came 

to see me they assured me that they would handle the situation, which I assumed 

meant in regards to my 602. But as time began to pass I slowly but surely began 

to realize that they intended to do nothing about it.

(ECF No. 29, pp. 19–20.)

While Plaintiff submits other documents to demonstrate that he previously filed a timely 

grievance, the Court does not find that these provide evidence to support his assertions. The 

September 16, 2016 order from the Kern County Superior Court summarizes Plaintiff’s petition 

for writ of habeas corpus as follows:

Petitioner had an appointment or ducat with the law library but was being 

removed for a dental appointment on June 7, 2016. He asserts the officer 

slammed his head into the wall, and prison medical staff is refusing to treat him.

The appeal exhibits show that his appeals are being assigned to health care staff, 

but as of now, there has been no response. Petitioner wants medical treatment. 

Petitioner wants prison staff to be reprimanded.

(ECF No. 31, p. 6.) The Kern County Superior Court then directs an informal response to the 

following questions: “Is Petitioner receiving medical treatment stemming from the incident on 

June 7, 2016? What is the status of Petitioner’s administrative appeals (if any)?” (Id.) Plaintiff 

has not attached any of the exhibits filed with his petition, nor has he included the informal

responses from the California State Attorney General, the Warden of WSP, or the California 

Health Care Receiver as ordered by the Kern County Superior Court. Thus, while the document 

provides support for Plaintiff’s assertion that he filed appeals that were assigned to health care 

staff, it does not provide further evidence that Plaintiff timely filed a non-medical grievance 

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 14 of 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

15

regarding his claims in this action. The same issue applies to health care grievance WSP HC 

16049867. (Id. at 8–13.) Finally, the letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights 

Division provides a description of the types of work performed by the Special Litigation Section, 

but otherwise does not describe the contents of Plaintiff’s original correspondence, thus providing 

no evidence that Plaintiff timely submitted a grievance regarding his claims in this action. (Id. at 

14–15.)

Based on the record before the Court, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence, other 

than his own assertions in his opposition, sur-reply, and NKSP-X-18-02686, that he timely filed a 

grievance regarding his claims in this action. See Rivera v. AMTRAK, 331 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (“Conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data cannot defeat summary 

judgment.”); F.T.C. v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997), as 

amended (Apr. 11, 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any 

supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”).

Furthermore, even assuming that Plaintiff did file a timely grievance while at Wasco State 

Prison, and that such a grievance was lost or otherwise mishandled, Plaintiff has nevertheless 

failed to demonstrate that his administrative remedies were unavailable. As discussed above, 

NKSP-X-18-02686 was cancelled as untimely, and Plaintiff did not appeal the cancellation. 

Plaintiff had the opportunity to explain that his prior timely grievance was not processed, both in 

the CDCR Form 695 and in an appeal of the cancellation of NKSP-X-18-02686. Plaintiff did not 

do so, and instead submitted NKSP-X-18-02686 directly to the OOA, bypassing the available 

administrative grievance process. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his 

available administrative remedies is not excused, and his remaining claims against Defendant 

Tapia should be dismissed.

IV. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s unauthorized sur-reply, 

(ECF No. 32), is HEREBY DENIED.

Furthermore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust, (ECF No. 26), be GRANTED.

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 15 of 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

16

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01281-KES-BAM Document 39 Filed 05/14/24 Page 16 of 16