Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01526/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01526-10/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

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

Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction; 

therefore, this matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302. 

Currently before the Court is Defendant Sweeney’s motion for summary judgment for failure 

to exhaust the administrative remedies as to Plaintiff’s claim that Sweeney retaliated against him by 

failing to provide Plaintiff indigent envelopes on or about December 20, 2013.

I.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Sweeney retaliated against him by 

failing to provide Plaintiff indigent envelopes on or about December 20, 2013. 

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SWEENEY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING TO GRANT DEFENDANT 

SWEENEY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

[ECF No. 57]

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 13
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

On May 13, 2015, Defendants Sweeney and Hardin filed a motion for summary judgment on 

the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed an opposition on 

June 22, 2015, and Defendants filed a reply on June 29, 2015.

On October 13, 2015, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 

that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 23.) 

The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on July 29, 2016, and Defendant Sweeney 

was granted thirty days to re-file an exhaustion0related motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s 

mail appeal retaliation claim. 

As previously stated, Defendant Sweeney filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to 

exhaust the administrative remedies on August 23, 2016. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 

28, 2016, and Defendant filed a reply on October 6, 2016.1 The motion is deemed submitted, without 

oral. Local Rule 230(l). 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Statutory Exhaustion Requirement

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995, requires that prisoners exhaust “such 

administrative remedies as are available” before commencing a suit challenging prison conditions.” 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Ross v. Blake, __ U.S. __ 136 S.Ct. 1850 (June 6, 2016) (“An inmate need 

exhaust only such administrative remedies that are ‘available.’”). Exhaustion is mandatory unless 

unavailable. “The obligation to exhaust ‘available’ remedies persists as long as some remedy remains 

‘available.’ Once that is no longer the case, then there are no ‘remedies ... available,’ and the prisoner 

need not further pursue the grievance.” Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis 

in original) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). 

This statutory exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, Porter v. 

 

1

Defendant submits that Plaintiff’s opposition is untimely and should not be considered. Under the mailbox rule, 

Plaintiff’s opposition was deemed filed on September 23, 2016-10 days beyond the 21 days period of time to file an 

opposition. Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff’s opposition will be deemed timely filed given Plaintiff’s pro se status and the 

lack of prejudice to Defendant. 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 13
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

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (quotation marks omitted), regardless of the relief sought by the 

prisoner or the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and 

unexhausted claims may not be brought to court, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007) (citing 

Porter, 534 U.S. at 524). 

The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of raising 

and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. “In the rare 

event that a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a defendant may move for 

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Otherwise, the defendants must produce 

evidence proving the failure to exhaust, and they are entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56 only 

if the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows he failed to 

exhaust. Id. 

B. Summary Judgment Standard

 Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary judgment if 

the movant shows 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) (quotation marks omitted); Albino, 747 F.3d at 

1166; Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party’s position, 

whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of 

materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; 

or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or 

that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to 

by the parties, although it is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco 

Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

The defendants bear the burden of proof in moving for summary judgment for failure to 

exhaust, Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166, and they must “prove that there was an available administrative 

remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy,” id. at 1172. If the defendants 

carry their burden, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff “to come forward with evidence 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 13
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

showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available 

administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. “If the undisputed evidence viewed in 

the light most favorable to the prisoner shows a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary 

judgment under Rule 56.” Id. at 1166. However, “[i]f material facts are disputed, summary judgment 

should be denied, and the district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts.” Id.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Description of CDCR’s Administrative Remedy Process

Plaintiff is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and CDCR has an administrative remedy process for inmate grievances. 

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1 (2014). Compliance with section 1997e(a) is mandatory and state 

prisoners are required to exhaust CDCR’s administrative remedy process prior to filing suit in federal 

court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir. 

2010). CDCR’s administrative grievance process for non-medical appeals consists of three levels of 

review: (1) first level formal written appeals; (2) second level appeal to the Warden or designees; and 

(3) third level appeal to the Office of Appeals (OOA). Inmates are required to submit appeals on a 

standardized form (CDCR Form 602), attach necessary supporting documentation, and submit the 

appeal within thirty days of the disputed event. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.2, 3084.3(a), 

3084.8(b). 

B. Summary of Allegations Underlying Plaintiff’s Constitutional Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 20, 2013, officer Sweeney refused to provide 

indigent state envelopes to Plaintiff so he could mail his attorney information regarding another 

correctional officer’s alleged actions. 

C. Statement of Undisputed Facts

1. Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson (P-48409) is a state prisoner in the custody of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1.) 

2. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State 

Prison (PVSP) in Coalinga, California. (Id.) 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 4 of 13
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. At all relevant times to this lawsuit, Defendant Correctional Officer Sweeney was 

employed by CDCR at PVSP. (Id. at 3.) 

4. CDCR provides its inmates with a comprehensive administrative grievance process in 

which inmates may appeal departmental policies, decisions, actions, conditions, or omissions that have 

a material adverse effect on their welfare. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 2.) 

5. CDCR’s administrative grievance process for non-medical appeals consists of three 

levels of review: (1) first level formal written appeals; (2) second level appeal to the Warden or 

designees; and (3) third level appeal to the Office of Appeals (OOA). (Navarro Decl. ¶ 3.) 

6. The administrative grievance process must be commenced by submitting CDCR form 

602 to an individual institution’s appeals coordinator. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the results of 

review obtained at the formal or first level, or if this level is permissibly bypassed, the inmate must 

proceed to the second level by completing section D or CDCR form 602 and submitting the form 

within thirty calendar days of the prior decision. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 4.)

7. If the inmate’s appeal is partially granted or denied at the second level of review or he 

is otherwise dissatisfied with the result, the inmate must explain the basis for his dissatisfaction in 

section F of form 602 and mail the form for review by the Chief of the OOA, via regular mail, legal 

mail or institutional mail, within thirty calendar days of the prior decision. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 5.) 

8. The third level review exhausts administrative remedies. To properly exhaust an 

administrative grievance, an inmate must pursue his appeals through all levels of the administrative 

appeal process unless excused from one of the levels under Title 15 § 3084.1. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 3.) 

9. When an inmate submits an appeal that does not comply with regulations governing the 

appeal process, an appeals coordinator will reject or “screen out” and return the appeal with the reason 

for the rejection and provide instructions to correct the defect, if correction is possible. An appeal may 

be rejected, cancelled, or accepted for the reasons outlined in California Code of Regulations, Title 15, 

sections 3084.6(b) and (c), including expiration of time limits and failure to attach supporting 

documentation. Rejection or cancellation of an appeal does not exhaust administrative remedies. 

(Navarro Decl. ¶ 4.) 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 5 of 13
6

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

10. PVSP maintains a record of submitted inmates grievances filed at the institution. The 

electronic database used for tracking grievances is called the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking System 

– Level I and II (“IATS”). Information recorded in IATS includes the inmate’s name and CDCR 

number; appeal log number; category (nature/subject) of the grievance; date the grievance is received; 

response deadlines and completion dates; and disposition at the first and second level of review. 

Appeals that were rejected under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(b) may be reflected in IATS as a 

single line entry without information relating to any level of review. The appeals office does not keep 

copies of rejected appeal forms. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 5.) 

11. On February 19, 2014, the PVSP Appeals Office began experiencing problems with 

IATS. On March 6, 2014, the PVSP Appeals Office was advised by Enterprise Information Services 

(EIS) that PVSP’s IATS database had been restored from a backup completed on March 6, 2014. The 

database restoration was necessary due to corrupted data that was caused by an incompatibility 

between the Paradox and Delphi software sued by IATS and an upgrade to the Windows 7 operating 

system. Due to the database restoration, all data entered into IATS between February 19, 2014 

through March 5, 2014, was lost. In some instances, IATS would not let the institution enter data for 

certain appeals. 

12. On March 17, 2014, PVSP “abandoned” the old IATS database and began using a new 

and separate IATS database. However, there was a second failure from August 25, 2014 until 

September 25, 2015. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 7.) 

13. The Mail Appeal was rejected on January 9, 2014, as it was missing necessary 

documentation. The appeals coordinator requested Plaintiff attach the unanswered CDCR form from 

Officer Sweeney that Plaintiff discussed in his appeal. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. C.)

14. In case number 13CRWR681574 filed in the Superior Court of California, County of 

Fresno, the Court required an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual matters pertaining to 

Plaintiff/Petitioner’s contention that PVSP was not properly processing his CDCR Form 602 

administrative appeals. (Compl. at 54.) On April 15, 2014, the Court continued the evidentiary 

hearing because PVSP agreed to process the appeals. (Compl. at 76.) Plaintiff’s petition was later 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 6 of 13
7

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

denied as moot. The appeals process was conducted on two separate property issues regarding various 

CDs and a radio. (ECF No. 15-5 at ¶¶ 9-10, Exs. H, I, J, K, L, M and N.)

D. Findings on Defendant’s Motion

In 2014, Plaintiff submitted twenty-one inmate grievances, eight of which were accepted for 

review. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 8.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff submitted the mail appeal on or about 

December 29, 2013, Log No. PVSP-C-14-00076. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B.) The appeal was rejected 

on January 9, 2014, because it was missing necessary documentation. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. C.) It 

is undisputed the appeals coordinator requested Plaintiff attach the unanswered CDCR form 22 from 

Officer Sweeny that Plaintiff discussed in his appeal. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 10; Ex. C.)2 In the mail appeal, 

Plaintiff stated that he asked Defendant Sweeney to sign a CDCR Form 22. (Navarro Decl., Ex. B.) 

Plaintiff had thirty days to resubmit the mail appeal with the requested documentation. Plaintiff did 

not resubmit the mail appeal until March 12, 2014, over two months later. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. 

D.) Plaintiff’s mail appeal was cancelled as untimely. (Id.) The cancellation letter advised Plaintiff 

of the process by which he could appeal the cancellation, as well as the relevant sections of Title 15 of 

the California Code of Regulations which provide further guidance and deadlines for appealing the 

cancellation. (Id.) Plaintiff submitted appeal PVSP-C-14-01810 whereby he appealed the cancellation 

of the mail appeal. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. E.) The appeal was received and rejected on September 

11, 2014, as untimely. (Id.) 

The Court finds that Defendant has met his initial burden with respect to Plaintiff’s failure to 

exhaust CDCR’s generally available administrative remedy process prior to filing this lawsuit; and for 

the reasons which follow, it finds that Plaintiff neither exhausted nor demonstrated that the remedy 

process was rendered effectively unavailable, entitling Defendant to judgment. Williams v. Paramo,

775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1171-72. Once the defendant has met his 

burden of showing that the plaintiff did not utilize administrative remedies, the burden shifts to the 

plaintiff “to come forward with evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that 

made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” 

 

2

References to the page numbers in Plaintiff’s opposition are to the page numbers generated by the Court’s electronic case 

filing system. 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 7 of 13
8

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

Albino, 697 F.3d at 1032. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that his appeal was improperly rejected because an inmate is not 

precluded from filing a grievance prior to receiving a response to the CDCR Form 22 request. (Pl.’s 

Opp’n at 14-15.) Plaintiff contends that he submitted the Form 22 to Defendant Sweeney but it was 

never signed or returned to Plaintiff, and therefore Plaintiff was unable to complete the administrative 

grievance process. (Id.) Plaintiff makes repeated reference to the “elephant in the room.” (Pl’s Opp’n 

at 6, 11, 17, 18.) 

As previously stated, the only relevant appeal is log number PVSP-C-14-00076, in which 

Plaintiff complained about inmate mail, which was rejected for missing documentation. (Navarro 

Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. B.) In the mail appeal, Plaintiff stated that he asked Defendant Sweeney to sign a 

CDCR Form 22. It is undisputed that, in rejecting the mail appeal, the appeals coordinator requested 

that Plaintiff attach the unanswered CDCR Form 22 that he had referenced. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 10; 

Navarro Decl., Ex. C.) Plaintiff’s contention that the appeal was improperly rejected is without merit. 

The relevant provision of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations states, in relevant part, as 

follows:

(a) Inmates and parolees may request interviews with staff and/or request items and services 

via a written request form. ...

(b) The written request process may be used when the inmate and parolees seeks a response to 

an issue or concern related to his or her confinement or parole. 

***

(e) When seeking response to a written request for an interview, item, or service, the inmate or 

parolee shall complete the Request for Interview, Item or Service form to describe his or her 

request. The inmate shall deliver or mail via institutional mail the completed form to any staff 

member who is able to respond to the issue. The parolee shall deliver or mail via the United 

States Postal Service the completed form to his or her parole agent, who shall respond to the 

issue or, as appropriate, route the form to another staff member who is able to respond to the 

issue.

(1) If the inmate or parolee mails the form, the receipted copy of their request may also 

be returned by staff via the mail.

(2) As the written request process does not stay the time constraints for filing an appeal, 

the inmate or parolee is not precluded from filing an appeal on the same issue prior to 

receiving a response to their written request. However, the appeal may be rejected by 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 8 of 13
9

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 appeals coordinator or designee with instructions to complete the request form 

process before resubmitting the appeal. 

Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15, § 3086(a), (b), (e)(1), (2). The regulations further provide that an inmate is to 

obtain and attach all supporting documents necessary for the clarification and/or resolution of his 

appeal issue prior to submitting the appeal to the appeals coordinator. Id. at § 3084.3(a). An appeal 

may then be rejected if it is missing necessary supporting documentation. Id. at § 3084.6(b)(7). In 

this case, Plaintiff expressly indicated in his mail appeal that Defendant Sweeney failed to sign his 

CDCR Form 22, but the form was not attached to the appeal. Thus, Plaintiff did not provide all 

necessary supporting documentation to adequately address his grievance that Defendant Sweeney 

failed to provide him indigent envelopes to mail legal correspondence. Accordingly, the appeal was 

properly rejected by the appeals coordinator. 

When an inmate submits an appeal that is rejected because it does not comply with regulations 

governing the appeal process, the appeals coordinator is to return the appeal with the reason for the 

rejection and provide instructions to correct the defect, if correction is possible. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 4.) 

Plaintiff argues that he was not provided instructions by the appeals coordinator making it impossible 

for him to exhaust the administrative remedies. (Pl’s Opp’n at 6.) Plaintiff’s argument is belied by the 

evidence in the record. Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, the appeals coordinator specifically instructed 

Plaintiff to “[a]ttach your unanswered CDCR 22s from Officer Sweeney.” (Navarro Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 

C.) Pursuant to department regulations, Plaintiff had thirty days thereafter to correct the defect and 

return the appeal to the appeals coordinator. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(a)(2). 

To the extent Plaintiff argues that he could not comply with the instructions given by the 

appeals coordinator because he was waiting for a response to his CDCR Form 22 that never came 

from Sweeney, such argument is baseless. Plaintiff’s mail appeal was not rejected because Sweeney 

had not responded to the CDCR Form 22, but rather because Plaintiff failed to “[a]ttach [the] 

unanswered CDCR 22s from Officer Sweeney.” (Navarro Decl., Ex C.) 

In any event, after Plaintiff’s mail appeal was rejected he did not resubmit the appeal until 

March 12, 2014 (PVSPC-14-00076 reassigned to PVSP-C-14-00888)-over two months later. 

(Navarro Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. D.) In the cancellation letter, Plaintiff was informed of the process by which 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 9 of 13
10

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

he could appeal the cancellation, as well as the relevant sections of Title 15 which provide further 

guidance and deadlines for appealing the cancellation. (Id.) In his opposition, Plaintiff attempts to 

dispute the rejection of the appeal and points to the “elephant in the room” and the failure to receive a 

response to his CDCR Form 22 (Pl.’s Opp’n at 9, 15.) Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. The 

CDCR Form 22 is maintained on carbon copy paper so that the inmate may retain a copy of the form 

for his own records. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 11.) At the bottom of the form, it states “Distribution: Original 

– Return to Inmate/Parolee; Canary – Inmate/Parolee’s 2nd Copy; Pink – Staff Members Copy; 

Goldenrod – Inmate/Parolee’s 1st Copy.” (Navarro Decl., Ex. D.) Thus, Plaintiff was only required to 

provide his first copy (Goldenrod) with his inmate appeal. In his opposition, Plaintiff simply states 

that he submitted the entire form, but Plaintiff fails to provide any reasoning as to why he did not 

retain his own carbon copy of the form. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the first copy of the request 

is when it is initially submitted to staff for review. The second canary copy (which Plaintiff contends 

he never received) is signed by the staff member to be returned to the inmate as receipt to verify the 

date of submittal. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084(f)(2). 

Furthermore, departmental regulations provide that if the inmate is unable to obtain supporting 

documentation, he is to submit the appeal with all available supporting documents and provide an 

explanation why any remaining supporting documents are not available. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 

3084.3(b). Thus, if Plaintiff did not have a copy of the relevant CDCR Form 22 to submit with his 

appeal, Plaintiff could simply have re-submitted his mail appeal within the time limits and provided an 

explanation as to why the form was available. Indeed, when Plaintiff re-submitted his mail appeal 

untimely on March 12, 2014, he attempted to explain the difficulties he was supposedly having but 

seemed to mistakenly believe that he had to obtain Sweeney’s signature on the CDCR Form 22 before 

he could resubmit his mail appeal. In any event, as previously stated and detrimental to exhaustion of 

the administrative remedies is the fact that his resubmission of the mail appeal was untimely and was 

properly rejected as such. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. at 94-95 (in order to give prison official a fair 

opportunity to resolve a complaint, an inmate must bring that complaint in a timely manner to the 

officials’ attention).

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 10 of 13
11

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

Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted appeal PVSP-C-14-01810 whereby he appealed the cancellation 

of the mail appeal. The appeal was received and rejected on September 11, 2014, as untimely because 

it was submitted five months after the deadline. The appeal was not maintained in PVSP’s records;

however a note in the system reflects that the mail appeal was attached to it and that Plaintiff was 

appealing the cancellation of the mail appeal. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. E.) As previously stated, 

department regulations require that an inmate submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of the 

occurrence of the event or decision being appealed. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.8(b)(1). Plaintiff 

clearly exceeded the 30 day time frame by waiting almost six months to submit his appeal of the 

cancellation of his mail appeal. Accordingly, this appeal was properly rejected as untimely. To the 

extent Plaintiff is attempting to argue that the appeals coordinator failed to provide him with 

instructions on how to correct this defect, there is no way to correct untimeless. 

Moreover, in his complaint Plaintiff states that the appeal process was not completed due to 

issues with the appeals coordinator. (Compl. at 3.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff filed a separate 

habeas petition for this issued and attached the appeals along with court documents to his complaint.3 

(Compl. at 44-47, 54, 76.) In case number 13CRWR681574 filed in the Superior Court of California, 

County of Fresno, the Court required an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual matters pertaining to 

Plaintiff/Petitioner’s contention that PVSP was not properly processing his CDCR Form 602 

administrative appeals. (Compl. at 54.) On April 15, 2014, the Court continued the evidentiary 

hearing because PVSP agreed to process the appeals. (Compl. at 76.) Plaintiff’s petition was later 

denied as moot. The appeals process was conducted on two separate property issues regarding various 

CDS and a radio. (ECF No. 15-5 at ¶¶ 9-10, Exs. H, I, J, K, L, M, N.) The mail appeal was not 

included in Plaintiff’s habeas petition, and thus was not considered an issue nor evaluated. (Compl. at 

44-47, 54, 76.) There were no other appeals related to the mail claim filed by Plaintiff during the 

period at issue. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 15.) 

 

3

See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that the court may take Error! Main 

Document Only.judicial notice of court records in other cases).

 

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 11 of 13
12

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

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to argue that the failure of the IATS, caused and/or contributed 

to the untimeliness of his mail appeal, such argument is without merit. It is undisputed that PVSP 

maintains a record of submitted inmates grievances filed at the institution. The electronic database 

used for tracking grievances is called the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking System – Level I and II 

(“IATS”). Information recorded in IATS includes the inmate’s name and CDCR number; appeal log 

number; category (nature/subject) of the grievance; date the grievance is received; response deadlines 

and completion dates; and disposition at the first and second level of review. Appeals that were 

rejected under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(b) may be reflected in IATS as a single line entry 

without information relating to any level of review. The appeals office does not keep copies of 

rejected appeal forms. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 5.) 

On February 19, 2014, the PVSP Appeals Office began experiencing problems with IATS. On 

March 6, 2014, the PVSP Appeals Office was advised by Enterprise Information Services (EIS) that 

PVSP’s IATS database had been restored from a backup completed on March 6, 2014. The database 

restoration was necessary due to corrupted data that was caused by an incompatibility between the 

Paradox and Delphi software sued by IATS and an upgrade to the Windows 7 operating system. Due 

to the database restoration, all data entered into IATS between February 19, 2014 through March 5, 

2014, was lost. In some instances, IATS would not let the institution enter data for certain appeals. 

On March 17, 2014, PVSP “abandoned” the old IATS database and began using a new and 

separate IATS database. However, there was a second failure from August 25, 2014 until September 

25, 2015. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 7.) The mail appeal was affected by the IATS, however, the appeal was 

recovered and reassigned Appeal Log Number PVSP-C-14-00488. (Navarro Decl. ¶ 13; Exs. B & D.) 

This is indicated by the sticker located on the right hand side of the first page of the mail appeal. (Id.) 

PVSP Appeals Coordinator, Navarro, declares that the IATS issued had no bearing on the timeliness 

of Plaintiff’s resubmission of the mail appeal and only affected the appeal log number. (Navarro Decl. 

§ 13.) Plaintiff submits no evidence to dispute Navarro’s declaration of the impact of the IATS 

failure and procedures implemented thereafter. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not 

exhaust his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Sweeney and Defendant is entitled to 

summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166.

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 12 of 13
13

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

IV.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Sweeney’s motion 

for summary judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies be GRANTED.

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 

being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the 

Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 60 Filed 12/01/16 Page 13 of 13