Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00011/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00011-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 7/16/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BARRY S. JAMESON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. YOUNG, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT 

INTRODUCTION

In this federal civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state

prisoner proceedings pro se, claims that his jailors at San Quentin Prison violated his First

Amendment and due process rights by withholding his incoming mail. Defendants move for

summary judgment. (Docket No. 16.) For the reasons stated herein, the motion is

GRANTED in favor of all defendants as to all claims. 

BACKGROUND

The following factual allegations are undisputed unless specifically noted otherwise. 

In 2013, plaintiff was denied his issue of American Curves magazine by San Quentin

Correctional Officer Pasley. (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“MSJ”) at 2, Pasley Decl. ¶ 2.) 

Case 3:14-cv-00011-RS Document 29 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 CDCR Form 22 facilitates communication between staff and inmates by providing a

means for making routine written requests at the initial stages of the appeal process. (MSJ at 4,

Davis Decl. ¶ 7.) 

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

2

After inspecting the magazine when it arrived at the prison, Pasley deemed the magazine as

contraband because it contained sexually explicit images in violation of prison rules. (Id. at

2, Pasley Decl. ¶ 6.) Pursuant to prison policy, she completed a CDCR Form 1819, entitled

“Notification of Disapproval — Mail/Packages/ Publications.” (Id. at 2–3, Pasley Decl. ¶ 6,

Ex. A.) Facility Captain Young agreed with Pasley’s determination and signed the 1819

form, a copy of which was sent to plaintiff. (Id. at 2–4, Lile Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.) After

receiving the 1819 form, plaintiff filed an inmate grievance through a 602 form, which was

given the log number SQ 13-02015. (Reply at 2; MSJ, Maiorino Decl., Ex. D.) 

His grievance was rejected before reaching the final levels of review and returned to

him. (MSJ at 4; Davis Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. B.) Appeals Coordinator Davis informed plaintiff by

letter that the appeal was rejected because plaintiff failed to file a CDCR Form 221

 and

because the 602 was defaced or contaminated with physical/organic objects or samples in

violation of California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3084.6(b)(4). (MSJ, Davis Decl. ¶ 8.)

Davis’s letter instructed plaintiff to submit a CDCR Form 22 to his counselor for review

before submitting an appeal to the inmate appeals’ office. (Id.) He further told plaintiff that

if he needed more time to complete Form 22, he could simply resubmit his appeal to the

inmate appeals’ office along with Davis’s letter. (Id.) After receiving this letter, plaintiff

never submitted a completed CDCR Form 22 concerning his allegation that he was

improperly denied American Curves. (Id. at 5, Lile Decl. ¶ 7.) Nor did he comply with

Davis’s instructions on how to resubmit his inmate appeal. (Id. at 4, Davis Decl. ¶ 9.) 

Plaintiff asserts that he did exhaust his administrative remedies. On July 5, 2013, the

same day that he received the 1819 form, plaintiff filed an inmate 602 appeal form regarding

the withholding of American Curves. (Opp. at 4.) In August, after waiting at least 30 days

for a response to his appeal, he sent a letter to Warden Chappell with a copy of the appeal

Case 3:14-cv-00011-RS Document 29 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

3

attached. (Id. at 6.) The letter advised Chappell that he had “no idea where the original

appeal was.” (Id.) He then sent another letter to both Chappell and the appeals office

informing them that he still had not received a response to his appeal. (Id.) He also sent

another letter directly to the third level of review explaining to them that the appeals staff and

Chappell were refusing to allow him to appeal or to respond to any of his letters. (Id.) Each

time defendants refused to answer or process his administrative appeal he systematically

submitted the appeal at each level. (Id. at 9.) When his appeal would not be processed as he

wished, plaintiff filed suit in state court, which was removed to this Court. (Id. at 2, 12.) 

Plaintiff contends that his 602 was never processed at the first level and that he never

received a letter from Davis (or anyone else) with instructions on how to resubmit his

grievance. (Id. at 6.) 

In his suit, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his First Amendment and due

process rights when they withheld his magazine. Defendants move for summary judgment

on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this

suit; he was properly denied access to American Curves; and that his due process rights were

not violated because he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits

demonstrate 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). Material facts are those

which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where

Case 3:14-cv-00011-RS Document 29 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff contends that inmate appeal Log. No. SQ 13-02015 was falsely labeled by

prison officials as a mailroom appeal, when in fact it was an appeal involving a counselor. 

(Opp. at 7.) The record flatly contradicts this contention. In Inmate Appeal Log. No. SQ 13-

02015, plaintiff declares that he is contesting the withholding of American Curves, the

deprivation of which he was informed of in July 2013 through a Form 1819. (MSJ, Maiorino

Decl., Ex. D at 3.) 

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

4

the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively

demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. On an

issue for which the opposing party by contrast will have the burden of proof at trial the

moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to support the

nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

The Court is only concerned with disputes over material facts and “factual disputes

that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not

the task of the court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v.

Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of

identifying, with reasonable particularity, the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. 

If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

II. Exhaustion

Defendants move for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies before filing this suit. Plaintiff filed one inmate appeal, Log No. SQ

13-020152

, regarding the withholding of American Curves. (MSJ, Maiorino Decl., Ex. D.) 

As noted above, it is undisputed that the appeal was rejected because it failed to comply with

prison procedures, that Davis instructed plaintiff on how to submit a proper and timely

appeal, that plaintiff failed to follow Davis’s instructions. 

 Prisoners must properly exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in

federal court. “No 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.” 

Case 3:14-cv-00011-RS Document 29 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

5

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and is no longer left to the discretion of the

district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 739 (2001)). The PLRA exhaustion requirement mandates “proper exhaustion” of all

available administrative remedies. Id. at 93. 

The State of California provides its prisoners the right to appeal administratively “any

policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the [CDCR] or its staff that the inmate . . .

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

welfare.” 15 CCR § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within

this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal review,

submitted on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form; (2) first formal level appeal, to an institution

appeals coordinator; (3) second formal level appeal, to the institution warden; and (4) third

formal level appeal, to the Director of the CDCR. See id. § 3084.7; Brodheim v. Cry, 584

F.3d 1262, 1264–65 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Defendants have presented evidence that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to filing this suit. They assert that his appeal was rejected, that plaintiff was

provided instructions on how to complete exhaustion properly, and that he nonetheless failed 

to comply with those instructions. Plaintiff contends, however, that his grievance was never

processed at the first-level, and that he therefore had to submit the grievance separately to the

higher reviewers. 

Plaintiff’s assertion is undercut by his own documents. In a letter dated July 2013

with the heading “RE: Screening at the FIRST Level,” plaintiff was told by the higher

reviewers that his appeal was being rejected because he failed to file a Form 22 and because

his grievance was defaced — the same reasons given by Davis in his letter. (Opp., Ex. D.)

Even if plaintiff did not receive Davis’s letter (or other indication from a first-level reviewer

that his 602 was being rejected), he was given notice that his first-level and second-level

grievances failed to comply with prison regulations. There is no assertion or evidence that

plaintiff complied with these clear instructions and resubmitted any first-level grievance

Case 3:14-cv-00011-RS Document 29 Filed 07/16/15 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

6

regarding the withholding of the magazine. In sum, he did not exhaust his claim prior to

filing suit. 

Plaintiff counters that if he did not exhaust his remedies, then the futility doctrine

should apply. He contends that it would have been futile to proceed because “[p]rison

officials would not process [his grievance], let alone answer it.” (Opp. at 11–12.) Such

conclusory speculation is not evidence that use of the grievance process would have been

futile in this instance. Also, his assertion is undercut by his own insistence on his continued

(and improper) refiling of his rejected appeal. If he regarded the process as futile, it is

unlikely that he would have continued to use it. 

Defendants, then, have presented evidence, which plaintiff has not disputed

successfully, that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. His repeated refiling

of a rejected grievance without complying with procedures does not constitute proper

exhaustion. The prison’s requirements define the boundaries of proper exhaustion. Jones v.

Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 923 (2007). A grievant must use all steps the prison holds out,

enabling the prison to reach the merits of the issue. Ngo, 548 U.S. at 90. The undisputed

facts show that he failed to comply with these requirements.

Plaintiff has not shown evidence that precludes summary judgment. Accordingly,

defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED on grounds that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies. Even if plaintiff had exhausted his claims, they would

fail on the merits, as explained below. 

III. First Amendment 

Defendants move for summary judgment on plaintiff’s First Amendment claims,

arguing that it was proper to withhold American Curves because it contained images deemed

inappropriate by prison regulation. Plaintiff contends that defendants’ application of the

regulation in this instance violated his First Amendment rights, not that the regulation itself is

unconstitutional. (Opp. at 15–16.) He asserts that the images, which he has never seen,

could not be classified properly as sexually explicit because the females in the images wore

Case 3:14-cv-00011-RS Document 29 Filed 07/16/15 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

7

lingerie that covered any objectionable body parts. (Id.) As noted above, defendants have

presented evidence that Pasley and Young observed the models’ breasts and was able to see

her/their nipple/areola areas through the fabric. (Reply at 4, Pasely Decl. ¶ 6.) 

While prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, Witherow v.

Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995), that right is subject to substantial limitation and a

regulation or policy infringing on the right will be upheld if it is reasonably related to

legitimate penological interest, Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir.

2005) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Inmates are barred from possessing

material that is obscene and sexually explicit. Cal. Code Reg. tit. 15, § 3006. Sexually

explicit material is defined as material that shows frontal nudity of either gender, including

the exposed female breast(s) and/or the genitalia of either gender. Id. § 3006(c) (17)(A).

Summary judgment will be granted in favor of the defendants. Two defendants,

Pasley and Young, both reviewed the images and deemed them to contain sexually explicit

material because the females’ breasts were visible through the “sheer fabric” they were

wearing. Plaintiff, having never viewed the images, has no basis to dispute the factual

finding of sexually explicit material. He has not, in other words, presented evidence that

precludes summary judgment. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s First Amendment claims.

IV. Due Process 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his due process rights when Warden Chappell

failed personally to respond to his letter regarding his appeal. (Opp. at 17). He concedes,

however, that he received notice of the confiscation of American Curves, and filed an appeal

directly relating to it on the date he received notice of the confiscation from the mailroom via

a photocopy of a CDCR 1819 Notification. (Opp., Jameson Decl. at 5.) Defendants move

for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff received all the process that was due

because he was given notice and an opportunity to respond. 

 

Case 3:14-cv-00011-RS Document 29 Filed 07/16/15 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-0011 RS (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFS.’ MOT. FOR SUMM. J.

8

The fundamental requirements of procedural due process are notice and an

opportunity to be heard before the government may deprive a person of a protected liberty or

property interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 33 (1976). With respect to the

personal property of prisoners, this is all that due process requires. (See generally Wolff v.

Mcdonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 

As noted above, California prisons offer prisoners an opportunity to appeal “any

policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the [CDCR] or its staff that the inmate . . .

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

welfare.” 15 CCR § 3084.1(a). This allows every prisoner the opportunity to have his voice

and opinion heard. 

Summary judgment will be granted in favor of the defendants. It is undisputed that

plaintiff received notice that American Curves had been confiscated as contraband, and had

(and used) his opportunity to file an appeal. Despite filing his appeal incorrectly, Davis

provided plaintiff with another opportunity to refile his appeal. Because the plaintiff was

given notice and an opportunity to be heard, plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated. 

Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynnwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 984 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of the defendants as to all claims.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 16) is GRANTED in favor of

all defendants as to all claims. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Chappell, Captain

Young, and Officer Pasely, terminate Docket No. 16, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 16, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00011-RS Document 29 Filed 07/16/15 Page 8 of 8