Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01652/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01652-6/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

THOMAS LOGUIDICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL 

HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01652-AWI-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE 

TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES 

OBJECTIONS DUE IN 14 DAYS

ECF No. 30

Plaintiff Thomas Loguidice is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that medical personnel at his 

prison prevented him from receiving medical treatment for diabetes in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. See ECF No. 1. On February 26, 2019, the district court dismissed all claims 

except plaintiff’s claim that defendant Rich was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 

needs. ECF No. 26. On June 7, 2019, defendant Rich filed a motion for summary judgment, 

arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a). ECF No. 30. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.1 

 

1 As required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998), plaintiff was provided 

with notice of the requirements for opposing a summary judgment motion via an attachment to 

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 30-2.

Case 1:18-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 34 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 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

2

We recommend that the court grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The 

remaining complaint against defendant Rich, as screened by this court, concerns events that took 

place on October 19, 2018. See ECF No. 3 at 4; ECF No. 10 at 3. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on 

November 28, 2018. ECF No 1. There was, in other words, slightly over one month between the 

alleged events that precipitated the lawsuit and plaintiff filing the lawsuit. Defendant Rich has 

submitted evidence, which plaintiff does not contest and which the court finds persuasive, that 

plaintiff has submitted only one healthcare grievance since October 19, 2018. The administrative 

review of that grievance was completed on April 4, 2019—more than four months after plaintiff 

filed this lawsuit. See ECF No. 30-3 at 3. The court has considered this grievance and finds that 

it covers the same basic allegations at issue in this lawsuit. See ECF No. 31 at 12.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect 

to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], 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. § 1997e(a). This statutory exhaustion requirement “applies to all 

inmate suits about prison life,” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief 

sought by the prisoner or the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 

(2001). In this case, the administrative process of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation provides the relevant administrative process that must be exhausted. See Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3999.226, 3999.227(a).

A prisoner may not exhaust his administrative remedies after initiating federal litigation. 

See Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A prisoner] may initiate 

litigation in federal court only after the administrative process ends and leaves his grievances 

unredressed. It would be inconsistent with the objectives of the statute to let him submit his 

complaint any earlier than that.”); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2002)

(“Requiring dismissal without prejudice when there is no presuit exhaustion provides a strong 

incentive that will further [the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s] objectives.”). 

Summary judgment is appropriate when 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). In a 

Case 1:18-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 34 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 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

3

summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust, the defendant has the initial burden of 

establishing “that there was an available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not 

exhaust that available remedy.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014). If the 

defendant carries that burden, “the burden shifts to the prisoner 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.” Id. The ultimate burden of 

persuasion remains with defendant, however. Id. 

Because the court is persuaded that defendant has carried the burden of proof, and because 

there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts, the court finds summary judgment in favor of 

the remaining defendant is appropriate. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Because the court finds that defendant Rich has met the burden on summary judgment, we 

recommend that:

1. Defendant Rich’s motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies, ECF No. 30, be granted.

2. The case be dismissed without prejudice.

We submit the findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 

recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 

and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 34 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 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

4

No. 205.

Case 1:18-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 34 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 4