Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00412-8/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY BLUNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.S. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0412 WBS CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his amended complaint (ECF No. 20), plaintiff alleges that on 

December 5, 2012, defendant Johnson pepper sprayed plaintiff without good cause for doing so,

and defendant Bryant failed to properly decontaminate plaintiff causing plaintiff facial burns and 

severe respiratory problems. Plaintiff also alleges that he was forced to serve 60 days in 

segregated housing beginning on January 27, 2013 in retaliation for plaintiff filing a prisoner 

grievance against defendant Johnson on January 16, 2013.

On August 21, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found that, based on the allegations identified above, plaintiff’s amended 

complaint states viable claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Johnson 

and Bryant and under the First Amendment against defendant Johnson.

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00412-WBS-CKD Document 52 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants Johnson and Bryant (defendants) have now filed a motion for summary 

judgment in which they argue that plaintiff did not exhaust available administrative remedies with 

respect to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Bryant and his First Amendment 

claim against defendant Johnson. 

Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action shall be 

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). Administrative 

procedures generally are exhausted with respect to the California prisoner grievance process once 

the third level of review is complete. The third level of review constitutes the decision of the 

Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 

§ 3084.7.

A. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated 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). 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. . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing 

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See Matsushita 

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the 

existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the allegations or denials 

of their pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, 

and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists or show 

that the materials cited by the movant do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the 

fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the 

Case 2:15-cv-00412-WBS-CKD Document 52 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 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

3

governing law, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., 

Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is 

genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 

party, see Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 

establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual 

dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at 

trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce 

the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’” 

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963 

amendments).

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to be 

believed. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the 

facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 

U.S. at 587. Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s 

obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards 

v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 

(9th Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than 

simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record 

taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 

‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

B. Analysis

Defendants point to evidence indicating that plaintiff never filed a grievance regarding his 

allegation that defendant Bryant failed to properly clean him after he had been pepper sprayed by 

defendant Johnson. Plaintiff does not point to evidence suggesting he did grieve that issue or 

even offer any opposition to defendants’ argument that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies with respect to his remaining claim against defendant Bryant. Because there is no 

genuine issue of material fact before the court as to whether plaintiff exhausted available 

Case 2:15-cv-00412-WBS-CKD Document 52 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 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

4

administrative remedies with respect to his remaining claim against defendant Bryant, defendant 

Bryant should be granted summary judgment and dismissed from this case. 

As to plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Johnson, plaintiff did submit a 

grievance regarding the allegations that support that claim on February 1, 2013. ECF No. 45-4 at 

22-24. However, plaintiff withdrew his grievance as it was being reviewed at the first level on 

March 27, 2013. Id. at 22. Plaintiff asserts that because prison officials ordered in response to 

other grievances filed by plaintiff that plaintiff not be retaliated against, e.g. ECF No. 45-4 at 10, 

plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies with respect to the retaliation claim against 

defendant Johnson remaining in this action. Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. 

There is no evidence before the court that plaintiff proceeded through the Directors Level 

with respect to a grievance in which plaintiff alleges he was assigned to segregated housing on 

January 27, 2013 in retaliation for plaintiff filing a prisoner grievance against defendant Johnson 

on January 16, 2013. Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff 

exhausted administrative remedies with respect to plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment claim 

against defendant Johnson and defendant Johnson is entitled to summary judgment on that claim.

The court notes that defendants seek an extension of the deadline for the filing of 

dispositive motions. That current deadline is October 21, 2016. Defendants have not shown 

could cause to extend the deadline further at this stage of the case.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ request for an 

extension of the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions (ECF No. 51) is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45) be granted;

2. Defendants’ remaining Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Bryant be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies resulting in defendant Bryant’s dismissal 

from this action;

3. Plaintiff’s claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Johnson be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

////

Case 2:15-cv-00412-WBS-CKD Document 52 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 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

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 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 days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: September 2, 2016

1

blun0412.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00412-WBS-CKD Document 52 Filed 09/02/16 Page 5 of 5