Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146-16/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01146-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER:

1) VACATING AUGUST 14, 2015 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ECF No. 

66); AND

2) RENOTICING AND RESETTING 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Date: September 4, 2015

Time: 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 6 (MJS)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants Walker, Davis,1

Prokop, Spralding, and Fellows on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. 

On August 18, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment based on

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 41.) Defendants 

belatedly challenged the timeliness of Plaintiff’s initial grievance in their reply to Plaintiff’s 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 58), and in their objections 

 

1

Formerly Defendant D. McGaha.

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 75 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 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

2

(ECF No. 60) to the Court’s findings and recommendations to deny summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 59.) In adopting the findings and recommendations on June 9, 2015, the 

District Court deferred consideration of the timeliness of Plaintiff’s first grievance to the 

Magistrate Judge at the evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 65.) 

The issue of whether Plaintiff timely filed, or had the opportunity to timely file, his 

initial grievance bears directly on whether or not his administrative remedies were 

effectively unavailable. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 

2014)(exhaustion is not possible where administrative remedy is unavailable); Marella v. 

Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027-1028 (9th Cir. 2009)(administrative remedy is unavailable 

where inmate lacks access to grievance forms or the ability to fill them out within 

applicable time limit). If Plaintiff filed his original grievance late, despite having had the 

opportunity to file it on time, then his failure to exhaust would not be excused, even if the 

grievance was improperly screened at later stages of the administrative appeals 

process. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 95 (2006)(proper exhaustion requires 

compliance with time limits for filing grievances); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24

(9th Cir. 2010)(to show that attempts to exhaust were thwarted by improper screening, 

inmate must first show he filed a grievance that would have sufficed to exhaust his claim 

if pursued through all levels of appeal); Leaf v. Felker, No. 2:08-cv-01554, 2010 WL 

144357, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2010). 

This Court’s original order setting the evidentiary hearing did not clearly put the 

parties on notice that the timeliness of Plaintiff’s first grievance would be considered at 

the hearing. Therefore, the Court re-notices and re-schedules the hearing to ensure the 

parties have time to prepare to present evidence on the following specific question:

 Whether Plaintiff had the opportunity to submit his initial grievance, Appeal 

Log. No. PVSP-O-12-00872, within thirty days of the events giving rise to his 

failure to protect claim, as required by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.8(b)(1).

In addition, parties should be prepared to present evidence on the questions 

listed in the original scheduling order (ECF No. 66), to wit:

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 75 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 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

3

 Whether Plaintiff’s Appeal No. PVSP-O-12-00872 was improperly rejected 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to allege a material adverse effect on his welfare;

 Whether Plaintiff's Appeal Nos. RJD-B-12-00796 and RJD-B-12-01098 were 

improperly cancelled as untimely; and

 Whether Plaintiff had a reasonable, good faith belief that the administrative 

appeals process was effectively unavailable to him.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing scheduled for August 14, 

2015 and RESETS the evidentiary hearing before the Honorable Michael J. Seng, 

United States Magistrate Judge, to decide the above disputed issues of fact relating to 

the exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims and the availability of administrative remedies. The 

hearing will be held on September 4, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 6, Seventh Floor 

of the United States District Court in Fresno, California. The hearing will commence and 

be completed that day, and will address the four issues listed above for the purpose of 

determining whether or not Plaintiff was excused from the PLRA’s exhaustion 

requirement because administrative remedies were “effectively unavailable.”

If either party would like to present additional documents to address the new issue 

identified above, they shall confer, identify the new documents, and Defense counsel 

shall provide a courtesy copy of same to the Court no later than August 21, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 75 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 3