Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00737/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00737-10/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

JOSE GONZALEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. GAMBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0737 KJM CKD P

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. The remaining defendants, Lively and Wheeler, are employees of 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at High Desert State Prison 

(High Desert). Defendant Lively has filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff 

failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing this action as plaintiff is 

required to do under 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a).

The following claims remain with respect to defendant Lively:

1. Defendant Lively used excessive force against plaintiff in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment on December 6, 2010 when he applied handcuffs too tightly. ECF No. 1 at 11-12.

2. Between December 6, 2010 and April 15, 2011, defendant Lively retaliated against 

plaintiff for his utilization of the inmate grievance process at High Desert in violation of the First 

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00737-KJM-CKD Document 44 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Amendment. The retaliation resulted in adverse action against plaintiff including the excessive 

force described above. ECF No. 1 at 11-13.

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 (CDCR). Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.7.

The exhaustion requirement demands “proper” exhaustion. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 

81, 90-91 (2006). In order to “properly exhaust” administrative remedies the prisoner must 

generally comply with the prison’s procedural rules throughout the administrative process. Jones 

v. Bock, 218 U.S. 199, 218 (2006). 

If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner / plaintiff shows 

a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). If there is at 

least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was exhaustion, the motion for summary 

judgment must be denied. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

The parties agree that plaintiff filed a grievance, High Desert #11-01447, concerning the 

events which form the basis of plaintiff’s remaining claims against defendant Lively. The initial 

grievance was filed August 30, 2011. ECF No. 33-4 at 12. After proceeding through the first and 

second levels of the grievance process, plaintiff submitted the grievance to the third level on 

January 29, 2012. ECF No. 33-4 at 13. On April 27, 2012, the grievance was cancelled at the 

third level as untimely. ECF No 33-4 at 24. Plaintiff then appealed that decision back to the third 

level as he is permitted to do under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.6(e). The third level

reaffirmed its earlier finding, specifically noting that plaintiff’s original grievance was not filed 

within 30 days of the events grieved as required by Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3084.8(b). ECF No. 

33-4 at 26-27. 

Case 2:14-cv-00737-KJM-CKD Document 44 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 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

3

In his opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff admits all of the foregoing. He argues, 

however, that the prisoner grievance process was not “available” to plaintiff because of the threat 

of retaliation from defendant Lively and other correctional officers. In McBride v. Lopez, 807 

F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held that a threat of retaliatory action by a prison 

official would render a prison grievance system unavailable so as to excuse a prisoner’s failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies if the following conditions are met: 

1. The threat of retaliation actually did deter the plaintiff inmate 

from lodging a grievance or pursuing a particular part of the 

process; and

2. The threat is one that would deter a reasonable inmate of 

ordinary firmness and fortitude from lodging a grievance or 

pursuing the part of the grievance process that the inmate failed to 

exhaust.

In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that he delayed filing his initial grievance until his 

arrival at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California (CCI) because he feared 

retaliation from defendant Lively while still at High Desert. ECF No. 1 at 13-14. However, 

evidence provided by defendant shows that plaintiff arrived at CCI on June 30, 2011, 

approximately 60 days before he submitted his grievance. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff fails to explain 

his delay once he arrived at CCI and there is nothing before the court suggesting plaintiff had 

reason to or actually did fear retaliation at CCI.

1

 

As indicated above, in order to properly exhaust administrative remedies, a prisoner must 

generally comply with all procedural rules during the grievance process including deadlines. 

Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-91. Plaintiff did not file his grievance concerning his remaining claims 

against defendant Lively until well after the CDCR-created deadline had passed. Because 

plaintiff’s grievance was cancelled for failure to file a timely grievance, and because there is not a 

genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s failure to file a timely grievance was due to 

unavailability of the grievance process, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be 

 

1

 In his opposition, plaintiff attempts to explain his delay in filing at the third level of review 

following the denial of his grievance at the second level. However, his grievance was cancelled 

at the third level because of his late initiation of the grievance process, not because he also filed 

late at the third level. 

Case 2:14-cv-00737-KJM-CKD Document 44 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 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

4

granted, and plaintiff’s remaining claims against defendant Lively should be dismissed. 

The court notes that at the end of his opposition, plaintiff requests that the court order 

CDCR to process grievance No. #11-01447 at the third level rather than granting summary 

judgment in favor of defendant Lively. Again, in Woodford, the Supreme Court made clear that 

departments of corrections are free to demand compliance with deadlines “because no 

adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the 

course of its proceedings.” Id. Woodford precludes the court from ordering CDCR to ignore 

their deadline for the filing of grievances.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Lively’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33) be granted; and 

2. Plaintiff’s remaining claims against defendant Lively be dismissed for failure to 

exhaust available administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. 

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: December 14, 2016

1

gonz0737.exh

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00737-KJM-CKD Document 44 Filed 12/14/16 Page 4 of 4