Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00587/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00587-18/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THURMAN GAINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00587-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 

NON-EXHAUSTION GROUNDS, AND 

REFERRING MATTER FOR ALBINO

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(ECF Nos. 77, 87)

Plaintiff Thurman Gaines is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 5, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that Defendant Horowitz’s motion for summary judgment on 

the issue of exhaustion be denied without prejudice, and that this matter be set for an Albino

evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal grieving 

Defendant’s denial of a lower tier and lower bunk chrono. (ECF No. 87.) The parties were 

granted thirty (30) days to file written objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 25-

26.) On October 7, 2019, Defendant timely filed objections. (ECF No. 90.) Following an 

extension of time, Plaintiff timely filed his objections on November 1, 2019. (ECF No. 92.) 

Case 1:15-cv-00587-JLT-SAB Document 94 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on November 14, 2019. (ECF No. 93.)

In Defendant’s objections, Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted in 

Defendant’s favor because Plaintiff had not exhausted all of his available administrative remedies 

before he filed this action. (ECF No. 90.) First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegation that 

he filed a relevant grievance that was never processed is only supported by self-serving inmate 

declarations and fails to establish a triable issue of whether prison officials prevented or interfered 

with Plaintiff’s attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id. at 2-3, 5-6.) However, 

“[a]lthough the source of the evidence may have some bearing on its credibility and on the weight 

it may be given by a trier of fact, the district court may not disregard a piece of evidence at the 

summary judgment stage solely based on its self-serving nature.” Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & 

Co., 784 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2015). Further, the undersigned agrees with the Magistrate 

Judge’s determination that the declarations of Plaintiff, Victor Cooper, and Darrell Harris create a 

triable issue of fact regarding whether prison officials prevented Plaintiff from exhausting his 

administrative remedies by losing and failing to process the administrative appeal of Defendant’s 

denial of Plaintiff’s request for a lower tier and lower bunk chrono that Plaintiff states he 

submitted on July 21, 2014. Therefore, Defendant’s first objection is overruled.

Second, Defendant argues that, even presuming that Plaintiff did submit a relevant 

grievance on July 21, 2014 and that Plaintiff’s grievance was lost and not processed by prison 

officials, Plaintiff has still not exhausted all of his administrative remedies prior to filing this 

action because Plaintiff did not file a new grievance on the same topic or file a grievance asking 

for the missing grievance to be reinstated. (ECF No. 90, at 2.) However, the undersigned finds 

that no regulation requires an inmate to file a new grievance on the same topic or file a new 

grievance regarding the missing grievance in order to exhaust administrative remedies. Further, 

the undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, while Plaintiff could have filed a request

pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3086(a) asking about the status of the 

grievance he submitted on July 21, 2014, Plaintiff’s failure to file such a request only goes to 

Plaintiff’s credibility, not to the exhaustion requirement. Therefore, Defendant’s second 

objection is overruled.

Case 1:15-cv-00587-JLT-SAB Document 94 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 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

In Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 

recommendations should be adopted except for the portion of the findings and recommendations 

recommending that the undersigned preclude Plaintiff from using any evidence that was not 

disclosed by the January 22, 2018 opposition to Defendant’s motion for sanctions in opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or at any Albino evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 87, at 

7-11.) Plaintiff first argues that the Court should decline to adopt the recommendation regarding 

the sanction because Plaintiff believes that he likely did disclose the witnesses, Albert Sanchez 

and Norberto Robancho, prior to January 22, 2018. (ECF No. 92, at 2.) However, while Plaintiff 

provided letters and declarations from Albert Sanchez and Norberto Robancho to the Court on 

December 7, 2017, the documents related only to Plaintiff’s alleged falls. (ECF No. 48, at 33-35, 

37.) The letters and declarations did not disclose that the inmates had knowledge that Plaintiff 

had submitted an inmate grievance regarding Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for a lower 

tier and lower bunk chrono. Therefore, the first time that Plaintiff disclosed that Inmates Sanchez 

and Robancho had any knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s attempt to exhaust administrative 

remedies was in Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed 

pursuant to the prison mailbox rule on June 27, 2019 and docketed on July 1, 2019. 

Consequently, Plaintiff’s first objection is overruled.

Second, Plaintiff argues that the undersigned should decline to adopt the recommendation 

regarding the evidentiary sanction because, in their memorandum decision vacating the 

undersigned’s grant of terminating sanctions, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “it is 

not clear whether an evidentiary sanction is warranted given that Gaines eventually complied with 

his discovery obligations to defendant’s satisfaction.” (ECF No. 69, at 2.) 

Upon remand, the District Court must proceed on the terms of the Ninth Circuit’s 

mandate. Stacy v. Colvin, 825 F.3d 563, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2016). The District Court may, 

however, decide anything not foreclosed by the mandate, so long as the District Court does not

take actions that contradict it. Id. at 568; Firth v. United States, 554 F.2d 990, 993-94 (9th Cir. 

1977) (“. . . a mandate is controlling as to all matters within its compass, while leaving any issue 

not expressly or impliedly disposed of on appeal available for consideration by the trial court on 

Case 1:15-cv-00587-JLT-SAB Document 94 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 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

4

remand.”). Furthermore, while the “law of the case” doctrine limits district court reconsideration 

of issues previously determined, the doctrine does not apply to issues or claims that were not 

actually decided. Mortimer v. Baca, 594 F.3d 714, 720 (9th Cir. 2010); Odima v. Westin Tucson 

Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484, 1497 (9th Cir. 1995).

In this case, the Ninth Circuit’s mandate was to vacate the undersigned’s grant of 

terminating sanctions and to remand the action for further proceedings. (ECF No. 69, at 2-3.) 

While the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum decision stated that it was not clear whether an 

evidentiary sanction was warranted, the Court finds that this language does not foreclose the 

imposition of an evidentiary sanction on grounds not actually decided by the Ninth Circuit. 

Therefore, the undersigned finds that imposition of an evidentiary sanction prohibiting Plaintiff 

from using any evidence that was not disclosed by Plaintiff’s January 22, 2018 opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for sanctions or Plaintiff’s prior discovery responses to support his 

opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or at any Albino evidentiary hearing is 

appropriate in the instant action. See Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 621 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(district court is free to do anything not foreclosed by the mandate or counter to the “spirit” of the 

circuit court’s decision) (quoting United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 

2000)). Consequently, Plaintiff’s second objection is overruled.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s and 

Defendant’s objections, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by 

the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 5, 2019, (ECF No. 87), 

are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Horowitz’s motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies, (ECF No. 77) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

3. This matter be set for an Albino hearing on the issue of whether Plaintiff filed an 

administrative appeal grieving Defendant’s denial of a lower tier and lower bunk 

Case 1:15-cv-00587-JLT-SAB Document 94 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 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

5

chrono; and 

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00587-JLT-SAB Document 94 Filed 01/15/20 Page 5 of 5