Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582-15/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO JOSE MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

HEZEKIAH SHERWOOD, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG-PC

SCHEDULING ORDER FOLLOWING

MAY 19, 2016 TELEPHONIC HEARING 

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

FURTHER BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS 

INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER,WITHIN 

21 DAYS OF THE MAY 19, 2016 

HEARING

(ECF No. 46.)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

BRIEFING IN RESPONSE TO M. 

VOONG’S DECLARATION, AS 

INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER, WITHIN 

21 DAYS OF THE MAY 19, 2016 

HEARING

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESERVE M. VOONG’S DECLARATION

UPON PLAINTIFF FORTHWITH

(ECF Nos. 41-4, 41-5.)

I. BACKGROUND

Alejandro Jose Morales (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action now proceeds with the Third 

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 3, 2014, against defendants Correctional Officers 

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 71 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Hezekiah Sherwood, Greg Coontz, and Ruben S. Felix (collectively, “Defendants”) for use of 

excessive force under the Eighth Amendment; against defendant Sherwood for retaliation under 

the First Amendment; and against defendant Coontz for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment.1 (ECF No. 27.) 

On October 7, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 46.) On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed an 

opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 50.) On November 12, 2015, Defendants filed a reply to 

the opposition. (ECF No. 53.) On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a surreply. (ECF No. 

54.) On December 7, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to strike the surreply. (ECF No. 56.) 

The motion for summary judgment and motion to strike are pending.

II. STATUS CONFERENCE

On May 19, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., a telephonic status conference was held before 

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, to discuss Defendants’ pending motion for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. California Deputy Attorney 

General Andrew J. Whisnand appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants.

A. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants seek summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies for his claims before filing this lawsuit on October 1, 2013. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a).

2

 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s prison Appeal #CCI-0-12-02710 (“Appeal”) was 

not exhausted at the third level of review until June 3, 2015, nearly two years after Plaintiff 

filed this case. Plaintiff has admitted that he was in the process of exhausting his remedies at 

the California Correctional Institution (CCI) during the pendency of this lawsuit via his Appeal. 

/// 

 

1 On May 29, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from 

this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 32.)

2

Pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to 

prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, 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.A. § 1997e(a).

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 71 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 5
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

The following facts, inter alia, are undisputed. Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint for 

this case on October 1, 2013. (Defendants’ Undisputed Material Facts (DUF) 1.) The incident 

at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred on July 13, 2012 at CCI when Plaintiff was 

incarcerated there. (DUF 3-7.) Plaintiff initially submitted Appeal #CCI-0-12-02710 on or 

about November 1, 2012. (DUF 13.) On November 13, 2012, the Appeal was rejected at the 

second level of review for failing to attach necessary supporting documents pursuant to 

California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15 § 3084.3 (2013); Plaintiff had failed to attach a 

copy of his Rules Violation Report (RVR) which was necessary to adjudicate the Appeal. 

(DUF 15.) On November 21, 2012, the Appeal was again rejected at the second level of review 

for improperly filling out Section D of the Appeal form. (DUF 16.) On December 27, 2012, 

the Appeal was again rejected at the second level of review for failing to attach a copy of the

RVR. (DUF 17.) On January 28, 2013, the Appeal was again rejected at the second level of 

review for failing to attach a final copy of the RVR, including supporting documentation. 

(DUF 18.) On March 15, 2013, the Appeal was again rejected at the second level of review, 

pursuant to CCR, Title 15 § 3084.6(b)(10), for failing to submit the Appeal either typed or 

printed legibly in ink. Plaintiff had written his Appeal in pencil. (DUF 20.) On or about May 

10, 2013, the Appeal was denied at the second level of review, and on May 20, 2013, Plaintiff 

submitted the Appeal to the third level of review. (DUF 23, 24.) The Appeal was screened out 

nine times at the third level of review between July 3, 2013 and January 2, 2014, for, among 

other things, failing to attach necessary supporting documents to the Appeal.3 (DUF 25.) On 

June 3, 2014, the third level of review cancelled the Appeal pursuant to CCR Title 15 § 

3084.8(a), finding that Plaintiff had exceeded the limits for submitting his appeal. (DUF 26.) 

Plaintiff challenged the cancellation of his Appeal and on November 26, 2014, Plaintiff’s 

amended Appeal was accepted at the third level of review. (DUF 27, 28.) On February 23, 

2015, the amended Appeal was partially granted at the third level of review, allowing Plaintiff 

to resubmit the amended Appeal within thirty days. (DUF 29.) On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff 

 

3

Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive any response at the third level of review between May 

20, 2013 and January 2, 2014.

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 71 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 5
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

resubmitted the amended Appeal. (DUF 30.) On June 3, 2015, the amended Appeal was 

denied. (DUF 31.)

B. Discussion

1. Effect of Dismissal

The Court ordered Defendants to submit supplemental briefing within 21 days of the 

May 19, 2016 hearing, addressing the question, “Does Defendant contend that if Plaintiff’s 

complaint in this case is dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit, does Defendant contend that Plaintiff is barred from re-filing the case and if so, what are 

the legal authorities for that?” Plaintiff is not required to file a brief addressing those issues, 

but may do so if he wishes, within the same 21 days. The Court directed the parties to notify 

the Court if they come to an agreement that Plaintiff can immediately re-file and proceed with 

this case if it is dismissed for failure to exhaust.

2. Available Remedies

At the May 19, 2016 hearing, the Court raised questions about whether Plaintiff had 

“available” administrative remedies at the prison, given that it took more than two years for 

Plaintiff to exhaust his remedies using the prison’s appeals process, causing Plaintiff to fear he 

would be barred by the statute of limitations if he waited until after the appeals process was 

completed to file his lawsuit. 

The Court also discussed the Declaration of M. Voong submitted in support of the 

motion for summary judgment, in which M. Voong sets forth the facts concerning Plaintiff’s 

Appeal #CCI-0-12-02710 and the prison’s responses each time Plaintiff submitted or resubmitted the Appeal at each level of review. (ECF Nos. 46-4, 46-5.) The Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file further briefing within 21 days of the May 19, 2016 hearing, responding to the 

Declaration of M. Voong, addressing the timeliness of the prison’s responses to his Appeal and 

whether the prison’s responses show that administrative remedies were “available” to him 

through the prison’s appeals process. Defendants were ordered to re-serve the Declaration of 

M. Voong and all supporting documentation upon Plaintiff forthwith.

///

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 71 Filed 05/31/16 Page 4 of 5
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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 21 days of the May 19, 2016 hearing, Defendants are required to submit 

further briefing on their motion for summary judgment, as instructed by this 

order, as to whether Plaintiff can immediately re-file and proceed with this case 

if it is dismissed for failure to exhaust. Plaintiff is permitted but not required to 

file a brief addressing these issues, within the same 21 days;

2. The parties shall notify the Court if they come to an agreement that Plaintiff can 

immediately re-file and proceed with this case if it is dismissed for failure to 

exhaust;

3. Plaintiff is required to file a brief responding to the Declaration of M. Voong in 

support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 46-4, 46-5), 

within 21 days of the May 19, 2016 hearing, addressing the timeliness of the 

prison’s responses to Plaintiff’s Appeal #CCI-0-12-02710, and whether the 

prison’s responses show that Plaintiff had administrative remedies “available” to 

him through the prison’s appeals process; and

4. Defendants shall RE-SERVE Plaintiff with the Declaration of M. Voong

forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 71 Filed 05/31/16 Page 5 of 5