Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-37/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

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS 

CAMACHO, IBARRA, GILL, ARAGON, 

RAMADAN, AND BOYD’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED 

AND THAT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

BE SET

(ECF No. 150).

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

TWENTY-ONE DAYS

Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Gamboa, Babb, and Sanders for procedural due process in violation of 

the Fourteenth Amendment; Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hernandez, Hubbard, Huerta, 

Cathey, Wolf, and Allison for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hernandez, Hubbard, Gill, Ibarra, Camacho, Aragon, 

Ramadan, and Boyd for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. (See ECF Nos. 1, 18, 21, 79, 80).1

1 The operative complaint is Plaintiff’s third complaint. (See ECF Nos. 79, 80). 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 15
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

On June 7, 2023, Defendants Camacho, Ibarra, Gill, Aragon, Ramadan, and Boyd

(“Medical Staff Defendants”)2filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff 

failed to properly exhaust his available administrative remedies as to his Eighth Amendment 

claims against the Medical Staff Defendants for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

(ECF No. 150). On July 10, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to 

respond to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 157). On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 162, pp. 15-64). On August 3, 2023, the 

Medical Staff Defendants filed their reply. (ECF No. 168). On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 

request for leave to file a supplemental declaration in opposition to Defendants’ reply. (ECF No. 

172).3

The Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff 

timely filed a grievance regarding his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need claims against the Medical Staff Defendants. Accordingly, the Court will 

recommend that the Medical Staff Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied, and that 

an evidentiary hearing be set to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies 

by timely filing a grievance regarding his claims against the Medical Staff Defendants that was 

improperly processed by prison officials.

I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

This case proceeds, in part, on Plaintiff’s claims against the Medical Staff Defendants for 

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See ECF 

Nos. 1, 18, 21, 79, 80). Plaintiff’s medical deliberate indifference claims are based on allegations 

that Defendants Camacho, Ibarra, Gill, Aragon, Ramadan, and Boyd did not make any effort to 

provide emergency assistance to Plaintiff or treat Plaintiff’s injuries following the use of force 

incident described in Plaintiff’s complaint that took place at Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”) on 

June 12, 2019. Plaintiff alleges the Medical Staff Defendants failed to administer prompt 

2 The motion does not challenge Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Gamboa, Hubbard, Allison, Huerta, 

Sanders, Cathey, Hernandez, Babb, and Wolf as they relate to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, 

including Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 

against Defendants Hernandez and Hubbard. (See ECF No. 150-1, p. 2 n.1).

3 The Court granted Plaintiff’s request “insofar as the Court will consider Plaintiff’s filing [ECF No. 172] 

when ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 187, p. 2). 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 15
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

treatment or otherwise prevented Plaintiff from receiving prompt treatment, and that the lack of 

timely treatment worsened the severity of his injuries. 

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A. Medical Staff Defendants’ Motion

The Medical Staff Defendants argue that the undisputed facts demonstrate that an 

administrative appeal process was available to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 150-2, pp. 6-7, 19). However, 

the numerous health care grievances submitted by Plaintiff during the relevant time period (COR 

HC 19001233, COR HC 2000112, COR HC 2000260, COR HC 2000311, and COR HC 

2000391) do not “relate to or exhaust the claims brought against the Medical Defendants in the 

TAC.” (ECF No. 150-2, p. 7 (citing Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts4

(“UMF”) Nos. 6, 11-17); Id., p. 14). Moreover, the motion argues that Plaintiff did not submit any 

other legally sufficient grievances alleging deliberately indifferent or improper treatment by the 

Medical Staff Defendants that would serve to properly exhaust Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

claims against the Medical Staff Defendants. (Id., p. 14). 

Defendants assert that at the relevant time, the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) had an health care grievance process in place for inmates. (ECF No. 

150-2, p. 7). An inmate exhausts available administrative remedies by receiving a decision at the 

headquarters’ level of review. (Id.) Defendants’ statement of undisputed material facts states that 

“[g]rievance forms are available to all inmates at the institutional level. Grievances shall be 

picked up and delivered to the Health Care Grievance Officer each business day per local 

operating procedure.” (ECF No. 150-3, p. 4, UMF No. 9). 

Defendants concede that Plaintiff submitted a health care grievance in 2019 (COR HC 

19001233), related to Plaintiff’s neck pain, lower back pain, and abdominal pain and Plaintiff’s 

requests for services and treatment for those ailments. (Id., p. 8) (citing to UMF No. 11). 

Grievance COR HC 19001233 “was completed at the headquarters level on April 23, 2020, with a 

disposition of no intervention.” (Id.) Along with this grievance, Plaintiff submitted radiology 

reports dated June 12, 2019 that included imaging findings of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine, right 

4 Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts in support of their motion for summary judgment can be found 

at ECF No. 150-3. 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 15
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

shoulder, and thoracic spine along with this grievance. (Id.) However, Defendants argue that this 

grievance (COR HC 19001233) was insufficient to exhaust Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants 

Camacho, Ibarra, Gill, Aragon, Ramadan, or Boyd because “Plaintiff did not reference any 

specific allegations against the Medical Defendants or allege how they were deliberately 

indifferent to his medical needs on June 12, 2019.” (Id.). Moreover, COR HC 19001233 was the 

only health grievance submitted by Plaintiff in 2019 and concerns the primary care physicians 

assigned to Plaintiff at the time the grievance was submitted (December 8, 2019). (Id., p. 13) 

(citing UMF Nos. 6, 11-12). 

Grievance COR HC 2000112 “was completed at the headquarters level on June 17, 2020, 

with a disposition of no intervention.” (ECF No. 150-2) (citing UMF No. 13). This grievance 

alleges that Plaintiff “was denied medical treatment on January 24, and 31, and February 4, 

2020.” (Id.) Defendants argue that COR HC 2000112 does not “reference any specific allegations 

against the Medical Defendants or allege how they were deliberately indifferent to his medical 

needs on June 12, 2019.” (Id.) 

Grievance COR HC 2000260 “was completed at the institutional level on June 29, 2020, 

with a disposition of no intervention, and not appealed to the headquarters level.” (ECF No. 150-

2, p. 9) (citing UMF No. 14). In this grievance, “Plaintiff alleged that health care staff failed to 

comply with his request for copies of medical records.” (Id.) This grievance was originally 

rejected at the institutional level because it contained “only general allegations.” (Id.) The 

resubmitted grievance, which Plaintiff did not appeal, does “not reference any specific allegations 

against the Medical Defendants, or allege how they were deliberately indifferent to his medical 

needs on June 12, 2019.” (Id.) 

Grievance COR HC 2000311 was submitted on April 15, 2020. (ECF No. 150-2, p. 9) 

(citing UMF No. 15). In this grievance, 

Plaintiff alleged that numerous medical staff and the Chief Executive Officer 

disregarded his serious medical needs, and authored false statements in Plaintiff’s 

medical records. (Id.) Among the numerous allegations, Plaintiff claimed that on 

March 24, 2020, a nurse practitioner ignored prior magnetic resonance imaging 

results from June 12, 2019, and January 13, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff submitted 

numerous documents to support his allegations, including a CDCR Form 7362 

Health Care Services Request Form stating that he experienced severe pain since 

June 12, 2019. (Id.) Plaintiff did not reference any specific allegations against the 

Medical Defendants, or allege how they were deliberately indifferent to his 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 4 of 15
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

medical needs on June 12, 2019. (Id.)

(Id.) Defendants argue that “although Plaintiff refers to magnetic resonance imaging results from 

June 12, 2019, and attached a CDCR Form 7362 Health Care Services Request Form stating that 

he has been in pain since that date, the grievance clearly focuses on care received afterwards.” 

(Id., p. 13) (citing UMF No. 15). Grievance COR HC 200311 was rejected “because the health 

care grievance addressed multiple issues and contained only general allegations.” (Id., p. 9) 

(citing UMF No. 15). Plaintiff was afforded 30 days to correct his grievance, but “[t]here is no 

record of Plaintiff resubmitting this health care grievance.” (Id.) Accordingly, Defendants argue 

Grievance COR HC 2000311 does “not exhaust claims against the Medical Defendants.” (Id., p. 

13). 

Defendants similarly argue that Grievance COR HC 2000391 does “not exhaust claims 

against the Medical Defendants.” (ECF No. 150-2, p. 14) (citing UMF No. 16) In this grievance, 

Plaintiff alleged that medical staff repeatedly denied him treatment and authored 

false statements in his medical records over a number of years. (Id.) Plaintiff 

submitted numerous documents to support his allegations, including a CDCR 

Form 7362 Health Care Services Request Form stating that he experienced severe 

pain since June 12, 2019. (Id.)

(Id.) However, this grievance does “not allege that the Medical Defendants failed to provide him 

care on June 12, 2019.” (Id., p. 14) (citing UMF No. 16). Further, Grievance COR HC 2000391 

“was completed at the institutional level on August 31, 2020, with a disposition of no 

intervention, and was not appealed to the headquarters level.” (ECF No. 150-2, p. 10) (citing 

UMF No. 16). Accordingly, Defendants argue that Grievance COR HC 2000391 does not 

“exhaust claims against the Medical Defendants.” (Id., p. 14).

Defendants also argue that the administrative process was available to Plaintiff, as the 

undisputed facts show that Plaintiff “submitted numerous grievances after the alleged events 

giving rise to his claims,” and although the submitted grievances were legally insufficient to 

adequately place prison officials on notice oft the allegations in this action, the process was 

nevertheless available to Plaintiff.” (Id., pp. 14-15) (citing UMF Nos. 6, 11-16). 

Finally, Defendants ask the Court to set an evidentiary hearing if the Court determines that 

there are any genuine disputes of material fact. (Id., p. 15). Defendant asks that this hearing be 

conducted “before the parties proceed to the merits of this case.” (Id.)

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 5 of 15
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

In support of their motion, Defendants submit: the declaration of S. Gates, the Chief of the 

Health Care Correspondence and Appeals Branch (ECF No. 150-4), a log of heath care 

grievances and appeals submitted by Plaintiff (ECF No. 150-5, pp. 2- 20), and copies of the 

headquarters’ level and institutional level responses to Plaintiff’s health care grievances (id., pp. 

21-121). 

B. Plaintiff’s Opposition

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he should be excused from the exhaustion requirement

due to the fact that the Health Care Appeals Office at Corcoran State Prison failed to process the 

health care grievance (602-HC) that Plaintiff submitted regarding the Medical Staff Defendants. 

(See ECF No. 163, pp. 15-64).5 Plaintiff states that this grievance was either purposefully seized 

and suppressed or simply not properly processed. (Id., p. 23). 

Plaintiff states that he submitted a 602-HC on June 19, 2019 while he was housed in the 

SHU at CSP in Ad/seg Annex Section 4A-4R. (Id., p. 19, 21). Plaintiff states that this 602-HC 

“was collected from [Plaintiff’s] cell[] door by the 3rd Watch Officers who placed [it] in the H.C. 

Appeals Box at Corcoran SHU on 6/19/19.” (Id., pp. 20-21). According to Plaintiff, the prison 

policy at the time (put in place by Defendant Gamboa) meant that Plaintiff was unable to place 

his 602-HC grievance in the SHU Health Care Appeals Box while Plaintiff was housed in 

administrative segregation. (Id., pp. 21-22). Plaintiff further states that he was not provided with 

any pens, paper, or 602 forms while he was in isolation. (Id., p. 24) Plaintiff states that the

collected 602-HC was made by a fellow inmate who was able to go to the law library and obtain 

supplies. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff states that it is the Health Care Appeals Office’s obligation 

to provide Plaintiff with a new 602 form if they were refusing to process the 602-HC grievance 

that Plaintiff submitted. (Id., p. 23). However, Plaintiff states that he never received a notice from 

the Appeals Office stating any changes in the grievance process or informing him why he 602-HC 

was rejected. (Id.)

Plaintiff also argues that he submitted numerous grievances related to his injuries and the 

5 Plaintiff also includes allegations that are not relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted his 

available administrative remedies, including allegations that medical staff at California State PrisonSacramento and Los Angeles State Prison are refusing to provide Plaintiff with the findings from a March 

2023 MRI. (ECF No. 163, pp. 17, 20). The Court will not address allegations unrelated to the issue of 

exhaustion.

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 6 of 15
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

denial of treatment and MRIs, including HC 602 #19001233 and HC 602 #20000112, which were 

based on the same issues of deliberate indifference. (Id., pp. 23-24). 

In support of his opposition, Plaintiff includes his copy of the 602-HC he asserts that he 

submitted on June 19, 2023. (ECF No. 163, pp. 2-3). In this grievance, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Ramadan, as well as other medical staff, failed to provide Plaintiff with medical 

assistance when he was taken to the 3B clinic following the use of force incident. (Id.) Plaintiff 

also alleges that the doctors and nurses at the CTC denied Plaintiff medical assistance and 

treatment as ordered by Defendant Hubbard. (Id.) Plaintiff also submits a declaration, signed 

under penalty of perjury, that after the use of force incident, Plaintiff was placed in 4A-4R SHU 

in Cell # 127 and was unable to obtain a 602-HC form, writing paper, or ink. (Id., p. 61). Plaintiff 

found another inmate (A.K. Pajaro) who was able to help Plaintiff and who filled out the 602-HC 

form. (Id., p. 62). Plaintiff was able to make a copy of this 602, which he submitted to the Court 

in his attachments to his complaint and to Defendants. (Id.) 

C. Defendants’ Reply

On August 3, 2023, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 168). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s assertion that he submitted a compliant grievance is “entirely 

contradicted by the record,” and the Court should thus “not adopt Plaintiff’s self-serving 

statement that he submitted this grievance.” (Id., p. 3). Moreover, Defendants argue that 

“Plaintiff’s attempt to submit ‘[his] copy’ of a grievance bearing no indicia that prison officials 

ever received or considered it does not create a genuine issue of material fact.” (Id., p. 4). 

D. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Opposition 

Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition argues that Defendants “have agree[d] that by the time 

my H.C. Grievance[s] were submitted, the H.C. Appeals Office were rejecting H.C. Appeals old 

forms.” (ECF No. 172, p. 4). However, Plaintiff was not on notice about the new procedures to 

follow or that the “old forms (CDCR 602 H.C. (Rev. 6/17))” would be rejected. (Id.) 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment in favor of a party is appropriate when 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. 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 7 of 15
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

56(a); Albino v. Baca (“Albino II”), 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“If there is a 

genuine dispute about material facts, summary judgment will not be granted.”). A party asserting 

that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials 

in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or 

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, 

interrogatory answers, or other materials, or showing that the materials cited do not establish the 

absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible 

evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

A party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the 

district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if 

any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). If the moving party 

moves for summary judgment on the basis that a material fact lacks any proof, the Court must 

determine whether a fair-minded jury could reasonably find for the non-moving party. Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986) (“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in 

support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury 

could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential 

element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 

477 U.S. at 322. 

In reviewing the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court “must draw all 

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Comite de Jornaleros 

de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011). It need only 

draw inferences, however, where there is “evidence in the record ... from which a reasonable 

inference ... may be drawn ...”; the court need not entertain inferences that are unsupported by 

fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 330 n.2 (citation omitted). Additionally, “[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed ....” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The Court may also consider other 

materials in the record not cited to by the parties but is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 8 of 15
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

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) 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).

Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199–1201 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (per curiam). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison 

life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief 

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, unless “the relevant 

administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action whatsoever in 

response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); Ross v. Blake, 578 

U.S. 632, 640, 642 (2016).

“Under the PLRA, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for 

which redress is sought. The grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories, 

because [t]he primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its 

resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation. The grievance process is only required to alert 

prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may be 

sued.” Reyes, 810 F.3d at 659 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted).

There are no “special circumstances” exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. Ross, 578 

U.S. 648. The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the 

prisoner.” Id. at 639. The Ross Court described this qualification as follows:

[A]n administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what regulations or 

guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple dead end—with officers 

unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates. See 

532 U.S., at 736, 738, 121 S.Ct. 1819....

Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically 

speaking, incapable of use....

And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart inmates from 

taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, 

or intimidation.... As all those courts have recognized, such interference with an 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 9 of 15
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

inmate's pursuit of relief renders the administrative process unavailable. And then, 

once again, § 1997e(a) poses no bar.

Ross, 578 U.S. 643–44. “When prison officials improperly fail to process a prisoner's grievance, 

the prisoner is deemed to have exhausted available administrative remedies.” Andres v. Marshall, 

867 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2017).

If the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal 

without prejudice of the portions of the complaint barred by section 1997e(a). Jones, 549 U.S. at 

223–24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2005).

C. CDCR Grievance Procedure

At the relevant time, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”) provided an administrative remedy for inmates challenging “health care policies, 

decisions, actions, conditions or omissions that have a material adverse effect on [a prisoner's] 

health or welfare” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3999.226(a) (2018). To initiate a health care 

grievance, a prisoner submits CDCR Form 602 HC within thirty calendar days and must “clearly 

and coherently” include “all information known and available to him or her regarding the issue.” 

Id. at § 3999.227(b), (g). Moreover, “[t]he grievant shall include any involved staff member's last 

name, first initial, title or position, and the date(s) and description of their involvement.” Id. § 

3999.227(g)(1). Health care grievances are screened to identify whether they should be rejected 

and to ascertain whether they should be addressed as a health care staff complaint. Id. at §§ 

39999.228, 3999.231(b). Health care grievances are subject to two levels of review: (1) an 

institutional level of review, and (2) a headquarters’ level of review, which exhausts 

administrative remedies. Id. at § 3999.226(a)(1), (g). Rejection or withdrawal of a healthcare 

grievance does not exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at § 3999.226(g). To properly exhaust 

administrative remedies, an inmate must receive a disposition at the headquarters’ level of review. 

Id. at § 3999.226(g).

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 10 of 15
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

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Undisputed Facts6

The Court finds that the following facts are undisputed:

• The alleged constitutional violations giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims against the 

Medical Staff Defendants took place on June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 150-3, p. 2; ECF 

No. 80, p. 6, 29).

• There was a generally available administrative remedy. (ECF No. 150-3, pp. 3-4; 

ECF No. 163, pp. 32-38).

• Plaintiff knew about and used the administrative grievance process, including 

advancing appeals to the final level of review. (ECF No. 150-3, pp. 4-6; ECF No. 

163, pp. 32-38).

• Between June 12, 2019 and March 12, 2021, Plaintiff submitted five health care 

grievances. (ECF No. 150-3, pp. 4-6; ECF No. 163, pp. 32-38).

• The above-listed appeals did not address Plaintiff’s medical deliberate indifference 

allegations against the Medical Staff Defendants for a failure to provide treatment 

on June 12, 2019, or did not receive a final disposition at the headquarters’ level. 

(ECF No. 150-3, pp. 4-6; ECF No. 163, pp. 32-38).

• Plaintiff did not receive a final disposition at the headquarters’ level for a 

grievance regarding the failure to provide treatment on June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 

6 Plaintiff does not provide a separate response to Defendants’ itemized Statement of Undisputed Facts as 

required under the Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 260(b). Plaintiff was provided with a Rand warning 

informing him of the summary judgment requirements of Rule 56 and of the Local Rules’ directive that, 

Plaintiff must ““reproduce the itemized facts in the Statement of Undisputed Facts and admit those facts 

that are undisputed and deny those that are disputed, including with each denial a citation to the particular 

portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied 

upon in support of that denial.” (ECF No. 150-1) (quoting L.R. 260(b)). Instead, Plaintiff’s memorandum 

includes specific denials or admissions as to Defendants’ arguments made in support of their motion for 

summary judgment. Thus, the Court has taken facts set forth in Defendants’ statement as undisputed. 

However, Plaintiff did attach evidence to his opposition. (See ECF No. 163, pp. 27-64). Additionally, the 

TAC is verified. (ECF No. 80). See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2004) (nothing that, 

where the plaintiff was proceeding pro se, the court was required to “consider as evidence in his 

opposition to summary judgment all of [his] contentions offered in motions and pleadings, where such 

contentions are based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, and 

where [he] attested under penalty of perjury that the contents of the motions or pleadings are true and 

correct”). The Court has thus considered this evidence in determining whether the undisputed facts entitle 

Defendants to summary judgment under the applicable legal standards.

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 11 of 15
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

150-3, pp. 4-6; ECF No. 163, pp. 32-38).

B. Analysis 

As discussed above, it is undisputed that there was a generally available administrative 

remedy and that Plaintiff did not receive a disposition at the headquarters’ level of review to any 

grievance he filed regarding his deliberate indifference claim as to the Medical Staff Defendants. 

As it is undisputed “that there was an available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did 

not exhaust that available remedy,” “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.” Albino II, 747 F.3d at 

1172. Here, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the 

generally available administrative remedy was available to Plaintiff.

As evidence that the process was unavailable to him, Plaintiff submits a declaration, 

which is signed under penalty of perjury, that he “submitted the 6/19/19 H.C. 602 via the 

Institution officers.” (ECF No. 163, p. 63). This is admissible evidence on summary judgment 

because it is included in Plaintiff's declaration that is signed under penalty of perjury, and it is 

based on facts within Plaintiff's personal knowledge. Plaintiff also submits the copy of the 602-

HC form that he submitted to the institution officer that he was able to make off some “scraping 

paper” that the inmate who helped Plaintiff complete the 602 sent along with pen filler. (Id., pp. 

28-29, 62). Plaintiff further alleges that he did not receive a response. 

Finally, it is undisputed that Plaintiff knew about and used the administrative grievance 

process, including advancing appeals to the final level of headquarters’ review.

Defendants argue that the Court should disregard Plaintiff’s evidence as self-serving. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claim that he submitted a grievance and was otherwise thwarted 

in filing a health care grievance are “demonstrably false and contradicted by the record.” (ECF 

No. 168, p. 3). In support of his argument, Defendant cites to Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372. 

However, in Scott, there was a videotape that contradicted the plaintiff's version of events, and 

there was no indication that the videotape was doctored or altered. Id. at 378. Here, there is no 

evidence that is capable of objectively disproving Plaintiff's allegation that he submitted a 

grievance on June 19, 2019. See, e.g., Hughes v. Rodriguez, 2022 WL 1180766, at *4 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 12 of 15
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

Apr. 21, 2022) (“While Scott involved dashcam video footage, courts have since applied its logic 

to other types of evidence capable of objectively disproving witness testimony.”).

Defendants also argue that the copy of the grievance submitted by Plaintiff as evidence 

does not create a genuine issue of material fact in light of the fact that “Plaintiff made ready use 

of the grievance process[.]” (ECF No. 168, p. 4). 

While self-serving, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s declaration and verified opposition are 

not vague, conclusory, or lacking in detailed facts. As noted above, Plaintiff explains the relevant 

factual allegations and claims, states that he submitted a grievance regarding the failure of the 3B 

clinic and CTC medical staff to provide medical treatment following the use of force incident, 

and states the date on which he submitted the grievance to the prison staff responsible for 

collecting such grievances. Thus, Plaintiff has provided specific factual allegations. See S.E.C. v. 

Phan, 500 F.3d 895, 909 (9th Cir. 2007) ((“[D]eclarations oftentimes will be self-serving—[a]nd 

properly so, because otherwise there would be no point in [a party] submitting [them]. In most 

cases, consequently, [t]hat an affidavit is self-serving bears on its credibility, not on its 

cognizability for purposes of establishing a genuine issue of material fact. Only in certain 

instances—such as when a declaration state[s] only conclusions, and not such facts as would be 

admissible in evidence, — can a court disregard a self-serving declaration for purposes of 

summary judgment.”) (altered) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nigro v. 

Sears, Roebuck and Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497 (9th Cir. 2015). Moreover, Defendants have not 

offered any evidence contradicting Plaintiff’s claims that, per Corcoran State Prison policy at the 

time, inmates were not provided with grievance forms while housed in administrative segregation 

or able to place the grievance forms into the proper submission box themselves. See Powell v. 

Gomes, No. 2:21-cv-0781-DB-P, 2022 WL 17904454, at *5 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2022)

(“Defendants have put forth evidence showing that there is no record that plaintiff submitted an 

appeal for second level review. However, there is nothing in their motion that contradicts 

plaintiff's account that he put his appeal out for an officer to pick up.”), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 3201079 (May 2, 2023). 

In light of the parties’ factual dispute, the Court will recommend that Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment be denied, and this matter be set for an evidentiary hearing to determine 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 13 of 15
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

whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies relative to his claim in this action. Albino II, 

747 F.3d at 1168 (“If summary judgment is not appropriate, the district judge may decide 

disputed questions of fact in a preliminary proceeding.”)

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff filed a 

grievance regarding his claims against the Medical Staff Defendants. Thus, Defendants Camacho, 

Ibarra, Gill, Aragon, Ramadan, and Boyd are not entitled to summary judgment on their 

exhaustion defense. Because material facts are disputed, “the district judge rather than a jury 

should determine the facts.” Albino II, 747 F.3d at 1166. Defendants have requested an Albino

hearing should the Court find that facts are in dispute and the Court recommends that this matter 

be referred back for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Plaintiff filed a grievance 

regarding the Medical Staff Defendants treatment of Plaintiff on June 12, 2019. 7

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants Camacho, Ibarra, Gill, Aragon, Ramadan, and Boyd’s motion for 

summary judgment (ECF No. 150) be DENIED.

2. An evidentiary hearing be set to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted his 

administrative remedies by timely filing a grievance regarding his medical 

deliberate indifference claim that was improperly processed by prison officials.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twentyone (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and 

filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

7 This case proceeds on the merits as previously set. (See ECF No. 78). To the extent that Defendants 

suggest that the merits of the case wait until a final decision on exhaustion, the Court denies that request.

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 14 of 15
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

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 

in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 191 Filed 11/27/23 Page 15 of 15