Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362-18/pdf.json

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

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. AREVALOS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01362-ADA-CDB (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL 

(ECF No. 86)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS 

BRAINARD AND STOHL’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES AND DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGINST THESE 

DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 63)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

AREVALOS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (ECF No. 77)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT (ECF No. 79)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MOVE ACTION 

THROUGH THE COURTS 

(ECF No. 87)

Plaintiff Robert Hackworth 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 matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 89 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 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

2

On December 30, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that the Court grant Defendant Brainard and Stohl’s motion for summary 

judgment because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not describing those 

Defendants’ involvement in his written prison grievance. (ECF Nos. 63, 86.)

The findings and recommendations also recommend that the Court deny Defendant 

Arevalos’ motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remain as to 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim, and 

Defendant Arevalos’ entitlement to qualified immunity. (ECF Nos. 77, 86.)

Finally, the findings and recommendations recommended denial of Plaintiff’s motion for 

default judgment. (ECF Nos. 79, 86.)

The findings and recommendations contained notice that the parties had fourteen days 

within which to file objections. (ECF No. 86 at 20.) Plaintiff filed objections, which addressed 

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding Brainard and Stohl’s motion for summary 

judgment only. (ECF No. 88.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s CDCR form 602 inmate appeal 

(“602”) concerning this matter, as originally submitted, did not name Brainard or Stohl as the 

officers who assisted in a cover-up by lying for Arevalos. (Id. at 2, 4.) Plaintiff states, however, 

that he informed officials about Brainard and Stohl’s involvement during the prison’s secondlevel investigation, but those officials omitted the information from their report. (Id. at 2–3.) 

Plaintiff claims that the original 602 was lost, so the third-level reviewers used the second-level 

copy that omitted Brainard and Stohl’s names. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff argues that these 

circumstances made the administrative remedies unavailable. (Id. at 3–4.)

The Court again acknowledges that it construes Plaintiff’s pleadings liberally because he 

is proceeding pro se. Accepting Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true for the purposes of 

summary judgment only, Plaintiff’s addition of Brainard and Stohl’s names to his 602 at the 

second and third levels of review do not bring these Defendants into the 602 directed at 

Arevalos. Under California regulations, the 602 must describe the specific issue under appeal 

and the relief requested; list all staff members involved and describe their involvement in the 

issue; and provide supporting documents. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.2(a), 3084.3. 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 89 Filed 03/31/23 Page 2 of 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

3

Moreover, “[a]dministrative remedies shall not be considered exhausted relative to any new issue, 

information, or person later named by the appellant that was not included in the originally submitted 

CDCR form 602.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b). Because Brainard and Stohl were not 

included in the original 602, Plaintiff did not exhaust his claims against them.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations filed on December 30, 2022, (ECF No. 86),

are adopted in full;

2. Defendants Brainard and Stohl’s motion for summary judgment based on failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies, (ECF No. 63), is granted, and the claims 

against these Defendants are dismissed without prejudice;

3. Defendant Arevalos’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 77), is denied;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, (ECF No. 79), is denied; 

5. Plaintiff’s motion to move the action forward, (ECF No. 87), is denied as moot; 

and 

5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 89 Filed 03/31/23 Page 3 of 3