Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01115/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01115-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB S. SILVERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DUANE CHRISTIAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 18-01115 BLF (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Docket No. 35) 

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, against jail officials at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (the “Facility”) 

for violating his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of 

grievances based on their refusal to allow him to file grievances. Defendants Capt. Duane 

Christian and Lt. Dean Flint filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 35, 

hereinafter “Mot.”1

) Plaintiff filed an opposition, (Docket No. 40), along with an exhibit, 

(Docket No. 40-1), and Defendants filed a reply, (Docket No. 42). 

 

1 In support of their motion, Defendants submit the declarations and exhibits from the 

following: defense-counsel David R. Norton, (Docket No. 35-1), Defendant Dean Flint, 

(Docket No. 35-3), and Defendant Duane Christian, (Docket No. 35-4). 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 

GRANTED. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Statement of Facts2

A. The Facility’s Inmate Grievance Procedure 

The Facility has established an Inmate Grievance Procedure (the “Policy”) pursuant 

to California Code of Regulations Title 15, section 1073. (Christian Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A at 1, 

“Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Custody Services Division, Policies and Procedures.”) 

The Policy was established “to provide a consistent and equitable method of handling 

inmate complaints... to resolve grievances within a reasonable time limit.” (Id.) Inmates 

may fill out an inmate grievance form when they have a complaint relating to conditions of 

confinement, including but not limited to: medical/dental care, classification actions 

(except disciplinary action), program participation, telephone access, mail, visiting, food, 

clothing and bedding, or other custody related matters. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. A at 1-2.) The Policy 

states that grievances “must pertain to a complaint that has occurred within the past two (2) 

weeks of filing the grievance.” (Id., Ex. A at 2.) 

 Generally, a prisoner seeking to file a grievance must request a grievance form from 

the Housing Officer. (Christian Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A at 3.) The Housing Officer will ask the 

inmate the subject matter of the grievance to see if she/he can resolve the issue prior to an 

inmate filing a grievance. (Id.) If the inmate chooses to file the grievance, he must submit 

the completed form to the Housing Officer, who will then sign and date the grievance in 

the top right-hand corner and give a copy of it to the inmate. (Id.) The Housing Officer 

then delivers the grievance form to the next level responder so it can be handled pursuant 

to the Policy. (Id., Ex. A at 4.) 

 

2

 The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

There are three levels at which an inmate grievance can be resolved. (Christian 

Decl. ¶ 4.) Every attempt is made to resolve the grievance at the first level, which requires 

a response within five days of receipt. (Id., Ex. A at 2.) If an inmate is unhappy with the 

resolution at any level, the inmate is entitled to appeal the grievance resolution to the next 

level until Level Three, which is the final level of appeal. (Id.) The grievance shall be 

responded to within five days, excluding weekends, upon receipt at Level Two and Level 

Three. (Id.) Plaintiff is aware that the Facility has a mechanism for inmates to file 

grievances and has filed “an abundance” of grievances pursuant to the Policy. (Norton 

Decl., Ex. A, Silverman Depo. 35:22-36:12, 42:10-13.) 

B. Frivolous Grievance Procedure 

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 15, section 1073(b), the Policy 

includes a procedure to control the submission of excessive grievances. (Christian Decl. ¶ 

5, Ex. A at 5-6.) According to Defendants, the Policy is intended to provide safeguards 

against abuse of the grievance system. (Id.) Without these safeguards, staff would be 

overburdened by having to respond to repetitive and frivolous complaints, time which 

would be better spent responding to valid, non-frivolous claims. (Id.) 

The Policy states, “Grievances that are filed by inmates for non-productive 

purposes, excessive grievances filed on the same issue, grievances that use profanity 

and/or insulting language, or grievances filed with the intent to undermine or interfere with 

the grievance process, and that over burden staff with repetitive frivolous complaints will 

be rejected.” (Christian Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A at 2.) An inmate filing excessive and/or frivolous 

grievances is given written notice that any further grievances on the matter may subject 

him to disciplinary action. (Id., Ex. A at 3.) Grievances that are submitted after such 

notice are forwarded intact, with all copies attached, directly to a Correctional Lieutenant 

or Facility Manager. (Id.) 

The Policy further states, “Upon being notified by staff of an inmate who appears to 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

be filing excessive grievances with the intent to undermine or interfere with the grievance 

process and/or overburden staff with repetitive frivolous complaints, the Staff Lieutenant 

will review all of the inmate’s recent grievances to determine if placement on frivolous 

grievance watch is appropriate.” (Christian Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A at 5.) 

C. Plaintiff’s Grievances 

Plaintiff was in custody as a pre-trial detainee at the Facility from approximately 

September 2016 until October 2018.3

 (Christian Decl. ¶ 8.) In less than a one-month 

period, from October 12, 2016 through October 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed approximately 17 

grievances. (Christian Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B.) The Facility responded to each of these 

grievances. (Id.) These 17 grievances are summarized as follows: 

 On October 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed his first grievance which related to a 

write-up he had received. (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 15.) 

 On October 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed three separate and unrelated grievances. 

(Christian Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. B.) The first grievance related to the cleaning 

supplies that the Facility used. (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 16-17.) The second 

grievance related to the appeal process for disciplinary actions. (Id.; Docket 

No. 35-4 at 18.) The third grievance suggested that inmates should have the 

opportunity to purchase phone cards. (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 19.) 

 On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed two grievances. (Christian Decl. ¶ 11, 

Ex. B.) The first grievance stated, “it would be humane to offer a warm 

breakfast at this facility twice a week.” (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 20.) The 

second grievance related to Plaintiff’s concerns with the showers. (Id.; 

Docket No. 35-4 at 21.) 

 On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed four separate grievances. (Christian 

 

3

 Plaintiff was committed to the Napa State Hospital for observation and treatment from 

approximately May 18, 2018 through August 7, 2018. On or about October 25, 2018, 

Plaintiff was transferred to a facility in Mendocino. (Christian Decl. ¶ 8.) 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. B.) The first grievance complained that there was not a 2016 

Penal Code book accessible. (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 22.) The second 

grievance related to the air vents and air ventilation. (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 

23.) The third grievance related to Plaintiff’s access to a law library. (Id.; 

Docket No. 35-4 at 24.) The fourth grievance related to Plaintiff’s request 

for an indigent inmate packet made on October 10, 2016. (Id.; Docket No. 

35-4 at 25.) 

 On October 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding alleged “tiny dark 

metallic lead flakes” in the sink. (Christian Decl. ¶ 13; Docket No. 35-4 at 

26.) 

 On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed two separate grievances. (Christian 

Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. B.) The first grievance related to documents Plaintiff 

requested for a court appearance. (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 27.) The second 

grievance also related to materials for a court appearance. (Id.; Docket No. 

35-4 at 28.) 

 On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed two separate grievances. (Christian 

Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. B.) The first grievance indicated that Plaintiff believed it was 

cruel and unusual punishment to be forced to wear a bracelet 24 hours a day 

without being proven guilty. (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 29.) The second 

grievance related to a conflict Plaintiff had with a sergeant regarding mailing 

out legal documents. (Id.; Docket No. 35-4 at 30.) 

 On October 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance that stated, “all indigent 

inmates who need glasses should be granted glasses and notified of this 

opportunity.” (Christian Decl. ¶ 16; Docket No. 35-4 at 31.) 

 On October 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the chilled air 

pressure in the hole and that inmates are threatened for using a blanket. 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(Christian Decl. ¶ 17; Docket No. 35-4 at 32.) 

After reviewing Plaintiff’s grievances filed up to October 30, 2016, the Facility staff 

determined that the nature and number of grievances Plaintiff had filed warranted placing 

him on frivolous grievance watch. (Christian Decl. ¶ 18.) Pursuant to the Policy, 

Defendant Christian, who was the staff lieutenant at the time, sent Plaintiff a memorandum 

on October 31, 2016, informing him that per the Policy, Defendant Christian would be 

reviewing each of Plaintiff’s grievances to determine which would be accepted and which 

would be denied. (Id., Ex. C.) The memorandum indicated that based on the nature of

grievances filed to date, Defendant Christian believed that many of Plaintiff’s grievances 

were repetitive and frivolous complaints which intended to undermine or interfere with the 

grievance process and were burdensome to staff. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff was on 

notice that Defendant Christian would be reviewing all his future grievances to determine 

if they should be processed. (Norton Decl., Ex. A, Silverman Depo. 53:13-54:2.) 

From October 31, 2016 until approximately May 2018, staff forwarded all of 

Plaintiff’s grievances to Defendant Christian at the first level of review. (Christian Decl. ¶ 

19.) In May 2018, Defendant Christian was notified that the present lawsuit had been 

initiated against him. (Id. ¶ 20.) Therefore, the Facility designated Defendant Flint as the 

individual to review each of Plaintiff’s grievances at the first level of review. (Id.; Flint ¶ 

2.) From May 2018 through October 2018, staff forwarded all of Plaintiff’s grievances to 

Defendant Flint at the first level of review. (Flint Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff was aware that 

Defendant Flint had started reviewing his grievances. (Norton Decl., Ex. A, Silverman 

Depo. 81:6-10.) 

Defendants Christian and Flint reviewed each of Plaintiff’s grievances to determine 

whether the grievance was repetitive or frivolous. (Christian Decl. ¶ 19; Flint Decl. ¶ 3.) 

If the grievance was not deemed frivolous, it was accepted and answered at each level per 

the Policy. (Id.) However, if the grievance was deemed frivolous, it was clearly marked 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

as rejected and returned to Plaintiff. (Id.) 

In 2017, Plaintiff filed approximately 100 grievances, 59 of which were answered 

and 41 of which were rejected and returned as frivolous. (Christian Decl. ¶ 21, Ex. D.) In 

2018, Plaintiff filed approximately 196 grievances, 98 of which were answered and 98 

were either rejected or returned as frivolous. (Id. ¶ 22, Ex. D.) In sum, from October 2016 

through October 2018, Plaintiff filed approximately 250 grievances, of which over half 

were responded to. (Christian Decl. ¶ 23.) 

Many grievances were rejected because they were actually requests, such as 

requests for copies of medical records, for which the Facility has a separate procedure that 

inmates are required to use. (Christian Decl. ¶ 24.) Others were rejected because they 

related to the disciplinary process, which is explicitly exempted from the grievance policy 

and may not be grieved; rather, inmates must appeal disciplinary actions. (Id., Ex. A at 1.) 

Defendant Flint generally deemed a grievance as frivolous if it was “repetitive and 

related to an issue which Plaintiff had previously grieved.” (Flint Decl. ¶ 4.) On June 8, 

2018, Defendant Flint sent Plaintiff a memorandum advising him that in light of his most 

recent grievance in which he complained that the Facility was failing to investigate his 

complaints, any further grievances submitted by Plaintiff in which he alleged that the 

Facility was failing to look into, investigate, or follow up on his complaints would be 

immediately denied and returned to him by the Facility Administration. (Flint Decl. ¶ 5, 

Ex. B.) On June 26, 2018, Defendant Christian sent Plaintiff a memorandum informing 

him that the Facility would reject all future grievances regarding rejected grievances. 

(Christian Decl. ¶ 26, Ex. E.) Defendant Christian explained that Plaintiff was not 

following the appropriate procedure by continuing to grieve issues repeatedly and when 

dissatisfied with the response, grieving the individuals who answered at various levels. 

(Id.) Defendant Christian informed Plaintiff that if he was dissatisfied with a response to a 

grievance and it has been appealed through all three levels, Plaintiff had the ability to file a 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Humboldt County Superior Court. (Id.) Defendant 

Christian further informed Plaintiff that Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and 

the Facility’s Policy allowed grievances to be rejected at the initial level if deemed to be 

frivolous, non-productive, repetitive or over burdensome to staff. (Id.) 

II. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show 

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). A court will grant summary judgment 

“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an 

element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof 

at trial . . . since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the 

nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of 

the lawsuit under governing law, and a dispute about such a material fact is genuine “if the 

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

Generally, the moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of 

the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex 

Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue 

at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other 

than for the moving party. But on an issue for which the opposing party will have the 

burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of 

evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. If the evidence in opposition 

to the motion is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may 

be granted. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50. 

The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “go beyond the pleadings and by 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

his own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on 

file,’ designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Celotex 

Corp., 477 U.S. at 324 (citations omitted). If the nonmoving party fails to make this 

showing, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 323. 

The Court’s function on a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility 

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a material fact. See T.W. 

Elec. Serv., Inc. V. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The evidence presented and the inferences to be drawn from the facts must be viewed in a 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See id. at 631. The nonmoving party has the 

burden of identifying with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary 

judgment. Keenan v. Allen, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). If the nonmoving party 

fails to do so, the district court may properly grant summary judgment in favor of the 

moving party. See id. 

A. First Amendment 

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 

518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). The right of 

meaningful access to the courts extends to established prison grievance procedures. See 

Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995); accord Hines v. Gomez, 853 F. Supp. 

329, 331-32 (N.D. Cal. 1994). This right is subsumed under the First Amendment right to 

petition the government for redress of grievances, see id. at 333, and protects both the 

filing, see id., and content, see Bradley, 64 F.3d at 1279, of prison grievances. Regulations 

which punish an inmate for using “hostile, sexual, abusive or threatening” language in a 

written grievance, for example, are not reasonably related to penological interests and 

therefore violate the First Amendment. See id. at 1279-82. 

Although there certainly is a right to petition the government for redress of 

grievances (a First Amendment right), there is no right to a response or any particular 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

action. See Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (“prisoner’s right to petition 

the government for redress ... is not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his 

grievance.”). Furthermore, a prison official’s failure to process grievances, without more, 

is not actionable under § 1983. See Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993); 

see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that prisoner’s 

claimed loss of a liberty interest in the processing of his appeals does not violate due 

process because prisoners lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison 

grievance system). 

Defendants argue that the undisputed facts demonstrate that they did not impede 

Plaintiff’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances. (Mot. at 9.) They 

point to the fact that in his deposition, Plaintiff acknowledged that the Facility has a 

mechanism for inmates to file grievances and that he admits that the records contain “an 

abundance” of grievances which he filed at the Facility. (Mot. at 9; Norton Del., Ex. A, 

Silverman Depo. 35:22-36:12, 42:10-13.) The evidence submitted by Defendants shows 

that during the first few weeks of his arrival at the Facility, Plaintiff filed 17 grievances, 

and that the Facility responded to each of these grievances. (Christian Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B.) 

After reviewing the 17 grievances filed up to October 30, 2016, the Facility staff 

determined that the nature and number of grievances he had filed warranted placing 

Plaintiff on frivolous grievance watch, as authorized by Title 15 and the Facility’s Policy. 

(Id. ¶ 18.) After being given written notice of being placed on frivolous grievance watch, 

Plaintiff continued to submit grievances, some of which were rejected as frivolous and 

some of which were not. (Id.; id. ¶ 21.) In 2017, Plaintiff filed 100 grievances, 59 of 

which were answered and 41 of which were rejected and returned as frivolous. (Id., ¶ 21, 

Ex D.) In 2018, Plaintiff filed approximately 196 grievances, 98 of which were answered 

and 98 were either rejected or returned as frivolous. (Id. ¶ 22, Ex. D.) Many of the 

rejections were due to the grievances being requests or related to disciplinary process, both 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

of which required different procedures. (Id. ¶ 24.) In sum, Plaintiff filed over 250 

grievances during the two-year period. (Christian Decl. ¶ 23, Exs. B, D.) 

Lastly, with respect to the claim that Plaintiff was denied the right to file a 

grievance, Defendants assert that Plaintiff stated in his deposition that “every issue I 

wanted to submit eventually I put on paper.” (Silverman Depo. 47:3-4.) Furthermore, 

Plaintiff stated that he never actually requested a grievance form from either Defendant 

Christian or Flint. (Id. at 55:21; Christian Decl. ¶ 25; Flint Decl. ¶ 6.) Based on these 

facts alone, Defendants assert that it is undisputed that neither Flint nor Christian could 

have denied Plaintiff the ability to file a grievance. 

In opposition, Plaintiff takes issue with how the Policy is being applied and 

provides definitions for each word used therein in support of his argument that Defendants 

violated the inmate grievance procedure policy. (Opp. at 3-6, 7.) Plaintiff asserts that the 

fact that he was able to file a “qualifying complaint” which was not procedurally processed 

is unlawful. (Id. at 8.) Then Plaintiff proceeds in the remaining pages of his 52-page 

opposition to explain in detail why his first 17 grievances were meritorious and then why 

certain grievances that were marked as “frivolous” should have been accepted and 

processed. (Id. at 11-47.) In reply, Defendants first assert that Plaintiff’s lengthy 

opposition violates the 25-page limitation under Local Rule 7-3(a), and therefore urge that 

pages 26-52 should be stricken. (Reply at 1.) Defendants then assert that the issue in this 

lawsuit is not whether Plaintiff’s placement on frivolous grievance watch was proper or 

whether the individual grievances should have been returned as frivolous but rather 

whether Plaintiff was permitted to submit grievances at all. (Reply at 1.) 

The Court agrees that pages 26-52 of the opposition should be stricken as violating 

Local Rule 7-3(a), which does not negatively impact Plaintiff because these stricken pages 

contain irrelevant arguments that certain grievances were improperly marked as frivolous 

by Defendants. Even if it were true that Defendants improperly failed to process these 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

“frivolous” grievances, their actions, without more, are not actionable under § 1983. See 

Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495; Flick, 932 F.2d at 729. The only issue in this First Amendment 

claim, as properly identified by Defendants, is whether Plaintiff was permitted to file 

grievances at all. See Hines, 853 F. Supp. at 333. 

It is undisputed that Plaintiff was permitted to file grievances at the Facility and that 

he did so in “an abundance.” (Norton Del., Ex. A, Silverman Depo. 35:22-36:12, 42:10-

13.) Plaintiff admits that “every issue I wanted to submit eventually I put on paper, but it 

was not attended to professionally, it was not attended to properly, ethically, respectfully, 

humanely.” (Id. at 47:3-6.) Plaintiff was clearly dissatisfied with the responses he 

received from Defendants, even though he attempts to characterize these responses as 

“rejections” in order to assert a First Amendment violation. But Plaintiff does not dispute 

the fact that during his two years at the Facility, he filed approximately 250 grievances: 

during 2017, he filed 100 grievances, and in 2018, nearly double that at 196. See supra at 

7. Even after being placed on frivolous grievance watch after his first month at the 

Facility, Plaintiff filed grievances with increasing frequency. Id. Furthermore, each one of 

his grievances was screened to determine whether it was frivolous or merited an answer. 

Id. As such, it cannot be said that Plaintiff was denied his right to petition the government 

for redress of grievances when he was continually permitted to file as many grievances as 

he desired, even though numerous ones were rejected as frivolous. At no time did 

Defendants categorically refuse to accept grievances from Plaintiff and screen them. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants have established the absence of a genuine issue 

of material fact with respect to the First Amendment claim against them. See Celotex 

Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. In response, Plaintiff has failed to identify with reasonable 

particularity any evidence that precludes summary judgment. See Keenan, 91 F.3d at 

1279. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Id.; see

Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Defendants Duane Christian and Dean Flint’s motion 

for summary judgment is GRANTED. The First Amendment claim against them is 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

 This order terminates Docket No. 35. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Granting MSJ 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\01115Silverman_grant-msj 

Case 5:18-cv-01115-BLF Document 55 Filed 09/03/19 Page 13 of 13