Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02525/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02525-8/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 

KENNETH A. GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. CLARK KELSO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-2525 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On remand, this case proceeds on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Bal, 

Sahota, Nangalama, Masuret, and Woods. ECF No. 50. 

 Plaintiff’s claims against defendants were previously dismissed for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. ECF Nos. 37, 42. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that “Griffin 

claimed that he was ‘satisfied’ with the administrative relief partially granted to him at the first 

and second levels of administrative review. Once prison officials at California State Prison 

Sacramento purported to grant relief with which Griffin was satisfied, Griffin’s exhaustion 

obligation ended” and defendants’ motion to dismiss was therefore granted in error. ECF No. 50 

at 2-3. However, the Ninth Circuit also held that on remand, defendants could contest whether 

plaintiff was actually satisfied using the procedures set forth in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 

1169-71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). 

Case 2:10-cv-02525-MCE-AC Document 60 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the filing of this 

order, defendants shall file a notice with the court advising whether they intend to file a motion 

for summary judgment based on the claim that plaintiff was not in fact satisfied by the relief he 

received via the administrative remedies process and therefore failed to exhaust. If defendants 

intend to file such a motion, they must also advise whether discovery limited to the issue of 

plaintiff’s satisfaction is necessary, and provide a proposed schedule for any such discovery and 

summary judgment motion. 

DATED: October 6, 2015 

Case 2:10-cv-02525-MCE-AC Document 60 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2