Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00920/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00920-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MIGUEL A. CELIS, V74892, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. RUIZ, et al., 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 19-cv-00920-CRB (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

ON GROUNDS OF FAILURE TO 

PROPERLY EXHAUST 

(ECF No. 22) 

Currently before the court for decision is defendants’ motion for summary judgment under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the grounds that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust 

available administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act (PLRA). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

On February 2, 2019, plaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed a pro 

se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his health and safety by 

several correctional and medical officials at SVSP. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff alleges that on November 23, 2017, Correctional Officer R. Ruiz acted with 

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s health and safety when, in an attempt to stop an assault on 

plaintiff by another prisoner, Ruiz fired a rubber bullet at close range and without warning hitting 

plaintiff on the head and causing him serious head injury. Id. at 6. Plaintiff further alleges that 

doctors Steven Virant, Carl Bourne and Anthony Huyuth, and Chief Medical Officer Bright, have 

been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to properly address and treat 

his repeated complaints of severe headaches, dizziness and memory loss. Id. at 8-12 

Defendants move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on 

grounds that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing 

suit, as required by the PLRA. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff did not file an opposition despite being 

advised to do so. 

Case 3:19-cv-00920-CRB Document 24 Filed 10/23/19 Page 1 of 6
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 Californi

a

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS 

 On January 8, 2018, plaintiff filed grievance SVSP-18-000156, which alleged that Ruiz 

used inappropriate or excessive force by shooting plaintiff with a rubber foam bullet during an 

altercation between plaintiff and another prisoner on November 27, 2017. ECF No. 22, Spaich 

Decl., Ex. B at 3-6. The grievance bypassed the first level of review and was processed as a staff 

complaint at the second level of review. Id. at 7-8. On February 4, 2018, the grievance was 

denied at the second level. Id. The second level response found that Ruiz did not violate 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) policy and noted that plaintiff 

was interviewed about the issue, and his only statement in support of his claim was “no 

comment.” Id. Plaintiff appealed the denial to the third level of review. At the third level, the 

office of appeals received plaintiff’s appeal on March 1, 2018 but cancelled it on the ground that 

plaintiff exceeded the time limits to submit the appeal despite having the opportunity to do so 

within the prescribed time limits. Id. at 2. The letter informing him of the cancellation decision 

advised the he could separately appeal the cancellation decision. Id. Plaintiff did not do so. Id. at 

Ex. A. 

On November 28, 2018, plaintiff filed healthcare grievance SVSP-HC-18002544, asserting 

that he was shot with a rubber foam bullet on November 27, 2017, requesting an MRI, and 

claiming that medical staff violated his constitutional rights by denying the MRI. ECF No. 22, 

Gates Decl., Ex. B at 4-5. He received a response from the institutional level – the first level of 

review – stating that no intervention by the institution was necessary. Id. at 2-3. The response 

also notified plaintiff that he could appeal the decision by submitting his grievance to the 

headquarters level, and the headquarters level review would constitute the final disputation and 

exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. Plaintiff did not appeal to the headquarters level. Id. at 

Ex. A. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 “The PLRA mandates that inmates exhaust all available administrative remedies before 

filing ‘any suit challenging prison conditions,’ including, but not limited to, suits under § 1983.” 

Case 3:19-cv-00920-CRB Document 24 Filed 10/23/19 Page 2 of 6
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 Californi

a

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 

81, 85 (2006)). To the extent that the evidence in the record permits, the appropriate procedural 

device for pretrial determination of whether administrative remedies have been exhausted under 

the PLRA is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Id. at 1168. The burden is on the 

defendant to prove that there was an available administrative remedy that the plaintiff failed to 

exhaust. Id. at 1172. If the defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the prisoner to 

present evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and 

generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. Id. The ultimate 

burden of proof remains with the defendant, however. Id. 

If 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. But if material 

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

should determine the facts in a preliminary proceeding. Id. 

B. Analysis 

 The PLRA amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide 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). Section 1997e(a) requires “proper exhaustion” of 

available administrative remedies. Ngo, 548 U.S. at 93. A prisoner not only must pursue every 

available step of the prison appeal process but also must adhere to “deadlines and other critical 

procedural rules” of that process. Id. at 90. “[I]t is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, 

that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). 

 A prisoner must “exhaust his administrative remedies prior to sending his complaint to the 

district court.” Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). He 

cannot comply with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement “by exhausting available administrative 

remedies during the course of the litigation.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 

2012) (citation omitted). 

 CDCR provides any prisoner or parolee under its jurisdiction the right to appeal “any 

Case 3:19-cv-00920-CRB Document 24 Filed 10/23/19 Page 3 of 6
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 Californi

a

policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the department or its staff that the inmate or 

parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or 

welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). CDCR’s appeal process consists of three levels of 

appeal: (1) first level appeal filed with one of the institution’s appeal coordinators, (2) second level 

appeal filed with the institution head or designee, and (3) third level appeal filed with the CDCR 

director or designee. Id. §§ 3084.7, 3084.8. A prisoner exhausts CDCR’s appeal process by 

obtaining a decision from the third level of appeal review. Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 

(9th Cir. 2010). A cancelation or rejection of an appeal does not exhaust available administrative 

remedies. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b). A cancelled appeal may later be accepted if a 

determination is made that the cancellation was in error or new information is received that makes 

the appeal eligible for further review. Id. § 3084.6(a)(3). A prisoner therefore must appeal the 

decision to cancel an appeal in order to exhaust. See id. § 3084.6(e). 

To submit a grievance, an inmate must use a CDCR Form 602 to “describe the specific 

issue under appeal and the relief requested.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a). Each grievance 

is limited to one issue or related set of issues. Id. § 3084.2(a)(1). A grievance should include 

sufficient information “to allow prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures.” Griffin 

v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation omitted). 

Prisoners also may file complaints regarding healthcare policies, decision, actions, 

conditions, or omissions using a CDCR Form 602. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3999.226, 

3999.227(a). Such complaints are subject to two levels of review – an institutional level of review 

and a headquarters level of review. Id. 

There are “three kinds of circumstances in which an administrative remedy, although 

officially on the books, is not capable of use to obtain relief.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 

1859 (2016). First, “an 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.” Id. Second, “an administrative 

scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use.” Id. Third, an 

administrative remedy is not available “when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking 

Case 3:19-cv-00920-CRB Document 24 Filed 10/23/19 Page 4 of 6
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 Californi

a

advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Id. at 

1860. 

The evidence submitted by defendants shows that plaintiff did not file an appeal 

challenging the cancellation of SVSP-18-000156 or an appeal challenging the denial of SVSPHC-18002544. In both instances, the responses to plaintiff’s grievances informed him of the steps 

he needed to take in order to exhaust available administrative remedies but he failed to do so. 

There is no evidence that plaintiff was prevented from taking these steps by officers unable or 

unwilling to provide any relief, that the administrative scheme was incapable of use, or that he was 

thwarted by prison administrators from taking advantage of the grievance process. See id. at 

1859-60. 

In sum, the evidence submitted by defendants meets their burden of proving that there was 

an available administrative remedy that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust in connection with his 

§ 1983 claims before filing this action. See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. The burden then shifted to 

plaintiff to present evidence that there was something in this particular case that made existing and 

generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. See id. Plaintiff did 

not do so. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56. See id. at 

1166. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) on 

grounds that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit 

is GRANTED and, pursuant to the law of the circuit, plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 23, 2019 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 3:19-cv-00920-CRB Document 24 Filed 10/23/19 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MIGUEL A. CELIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. RUIZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:19-cv-00920-CRB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on October 23, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Miguel A. Celis ID: V74892 

Salinas Valley State Prison 

P.O. Box 1050 

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: October 23, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 

Case 3:19-cv-00920-CRB Document 24 Filed 10/23/19 Page 6 of 6