Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146-21/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.

M. CATE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01146-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING EXHAUSTION OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 & 7.) The action 

proceeds on an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Walker, 

Davis1, Prokop, Spralding, and Fellows. (ECF No. 12.)

On August 18, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on 

exhaustion grounds. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff opposed the motion. (ECF No. 57.) 

 

1 Formerly Defendant D. McGaha.

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 58.)

On May 19, 2015, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to deny 

Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment and to hold an evidentiary hearing on the 

issue of exhaustion pursuant to Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2014)

(“If a motion for summary judgment is denied, disputed factual questions relevant to 

exhaustion should be decided by the judge, in the same manner a judge rather than a 

jury decides disputed factual questions relevant to jurisdiction and venue”). (ECF No. 

59.) On June 9, 2015, the District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations. 

(ECF No. 65.) 

On September 4, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of 

exhaustion of Plaintiff‟s administrative remedies, and the Court limited the issues to: (1) 

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); (2) 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; (3) whether Plaintiff's Appeal Nos. RJDB-12-00796 and RJD-B-12-01098 were improperly cancelled as untimely; and (4) 

whether Plaintiff had a reasonable, good faith belief that the administrative appeals 

process was effectively unavailable to him. (ECF Nos. 75, 80.)

At the evidentiary hearing, Defendants called two witnesses: Robert Cobb, a 

retired Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) Appeals Coordinator, who 

appeared by video conference from Tyler, Texas, and Jane Morgan, Correctional 

Counselor Specialist for Appeals at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”). (ECF No. 

80.) After hearing testimony, the Court continued the matter to allow the parties to 

present Plaintiff‟s medical records from January and February 2011 and to identify the 

portions of the records that each believed supported its position. (ECF No. 80.)

On October 1, 2015, Defendants submitted Plaintiff‟s medical records along with 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 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

3

their briefing statement. (ECF Nos. 84, 85.) Plaintiff provided additional medical 

records with his statement. (ECF Nos. 87, 88, 89.) On December 9, 2015, Defendants 

filed approximately three hundred supplemental pages of medical records and an 

additional statement identifying the portions of the records that they believe support 

their position. (ECF No. 92.) 

After reviewing the medical records and the parties‟ statements, the Court finds 

that the matter is now ready for issuance of Findings and Recommendations as to 

whether Plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies as to his claims in this 

action.

II. LEGAL STANDARD – EXHAUSTION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) stipulates, “No 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). 

Therefore, prisoners are required to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior 

to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). 

“The primary purpose of a [prisoner‟s administrative] grievance is to alert the 

prison to a problem and facilitate its resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation.” 

Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). “A grievance need not include 

legal terminology or legal theories unless they are in some way needed to provide 

notice of the harm being grieved. A grievance also need not contain every fact 

necessary to prove each element of an eventual legal claim.” Id. Instead, the grievance 

must alert “„the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought,‟” id. at 

1120 (quoting Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002)), and must give the 

prison an opportunity “to reach the merits of the issue.” Id. at 1119.

A motion for summary judgment is the proper means to raise a prisoner's failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Defendants have the 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 3 of 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

4

burden of proving Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Id. A 

defendant's burden of establishing an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies has been characterized by the Ninth Circuit as “very low.” Albino v. Baca, 697 

F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2012). The “defendant need only show the existence of . . . [a 

grievance procedure] that the plaintiff did not use.” Id. (citing Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 

103 F.3d 767, 778, n.5 (9th Cir. 1996)).

“If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner shows 

a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56.” 

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. If material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be 

denied, and the district court should decide “disputed factual questions relevant to 

exhaustion . . . in the same manner a judge rather than a jury decides disputed factual 

questions relevant to jurisdiction and venue.” Id. at 1170-71. 

A Plaintiff can demonstrate that administrative remedies were effectively 

unavailable to him when he attempts to comply with the process, but is “thwarted by 

improper screening.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010). In order to 

demonstrate this exception applies, the plaintiff “must establish (1) that he actually filed 

a grievance or grievances that, if pursued through all levels of administrative appeals, 

would have sufficed to exhaust the claim that he seeks to pursue in federal court, and 

(2) that prison officials screened his grievance or grievances for reasons inconsistent 

with or unsupported by applicable regulations.” Id. at 823-24. Plaintiff may also show 

that the process was unavailable to him because he lacked access to the grievance 

forms or the ability to fill them out within the applicable time period, see Marella v. 

Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027-1028 (9th Cir. 2009), or “repeated rejections of [his] 

grievances at the screening stage g[a]ve rise to a reasonable good faith belief that 

administrative remedies [were] effectively unavailable” to him. Sapp, 623 F.3d at 826.

Prior to January 28, 2011, an inmate initiated the administrative grievance 

process within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) by 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 4 of 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

5

submitting a CDC Form 602 describing the problem and the action requested. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a). An appeal had to be submitted within fifteen working 

days of the event being appealed or of the receipt of the unacceptable lower level 

decision. Tit. 15, § 3084.6(c). Up to four levels of appeal may be involved, including 

the informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also 

known as the Director‟s Level. Tit. 15, § 3084.5. On January 28, 2011, the inmate 

appeals process was modified and limited to three levels of review with provisions 

allowing the first level to be bypassed under specific circumstances. Tit. 15, § 3084.7. 

An inmate now had thirty days from the “occurrence of the event or decision being 

appealed” to submit his appeal. Tit. 15, § 3084.8(b)(1).

III. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff complains in his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that on January 19, 

2011 at his initial classification hearing, he informed Defendants of his concerns about 

threats from the Northern Riders gang and their leader at PVSP, inmate Sordia. (ECF 

No. 10.) Defendants acted with hostility and deliberate indifference towards Plaintiff and 

informed Plaintiff “he was „out of other places to go.‟” (ECF No. 10 at 8.) Defendant 

Walker placed Plaintiff in a holding cell adjacent to Sordia. Sordia denied any 

animosity, and Defendants approved Plaintiff for general population housing in the 

same unit as inmate Sordia. 

Prisoners affiliated with Sordia loitered outside Plaintiff‟s cell during meal breaks. 

Eventually, Plaintiff suffered a nervous breakdown and was transferred because of selfinflicted lacerations to his wrists.

IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ON EXHAUSTION

As noted above, the Court identified the following issues to be addressed at the 

evidentiary hearing: (A) 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, § 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 5 of 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

6

3084.8(b)(1)2; (B) 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; (C) 

whether Plaintiff's Appeal Nos. RJD-B-12-00796 and RJD-B-12-01098 were improperly 

cancelled as untimely; and (D) whether Plaintiff had a reasonable, good faith belief that 

the administrative appeals process was effectively unavailable to him. The Court will 

address each in turn.

A. Plaintiff’s Inability to Submit a Grievance within Thirty Days

The event which gave rise to the Eighth Amendment claim in Plaintiff‟s FAC 

occurred on January 19, 2011. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed his original complaint on 

July 12, 2012, and his FAC on May 10, 2013. (ECF Nos. 1 & 10.) While housed at 

PVSP, Plaintiff submitted appeal PVSP-O-12-00872 on December 12, 2011, eleven 

months after the incident giving rise to his claims occurred. Defendants argue that 

because this appeal was untimely, Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative 

remedies; thus, the Court need not consider any potential subsequent errors in 

screening Plaintiff‟s appeals. Plaintiff argues that he could not file a grievance within 

the first thirty days because “by doctor‟s orders”, he was not allowed to wear 

eyeglasses, possess writing utensils, or have access to CDCR forms.3(ECF No. 78 at 

10-11.) 

The regulations in effect at the time that Plaintiff filed his appeal provided that an 

appeal could be cancelled as untimely if the inmate failed to file within thirty days of the 

 

2 When Plaintiff filed his first appeal on December 12, 2011, prison regulations required that the appeal be 

submitted within thirty days from the event being appealed. Tit. 15, § 3084.8(b)(1). However, when the 

incident that Plaintiff complains of occurred on January 19, 2011, the timeframe for submitting appeals 

was limited to fifteen days. Tit. 15, § 3084.6(c). The Court applies the regulations in effect at the time 

Plaintiff filed his initial appeal PVSP-O-12-00872. See Sapp, 623 F.3d at 824; see also Jones, 549 U.S. 

at 218; see also Jones v. Washington, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108606, at *7 n. 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 

2011) (applying regulations in effect at time inmate filed his grievance). However, the Court‟s decision 

would be the same under either timeframe.

3

In addition, Plaintiff included a letter with his initial grievance stating that due to his “mental and 

emotional condition,” and unspecified side effects of medications, he had not been able to obtain a copy 

of his CDCR 128G Chrono to submit with the grievance. (ECF No. 20-3 at 15.) Per CDCR regulations, 

Plaintiff‟s failure to have all supporting documentation is not an excuse for failing to timely file. Tit. 15, § 

3084.3(b).

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 6 of 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

7

event being appealed and “had the opportunity to submit” it within that time. Tit. 15, §

3084.6(c)(4). CDCR regulations give the appeals coordinator or third level Appeals 

Chief the discretion to accept an appeal for further review when there is “information, 

such as documentation from health care staff that the inmate or parolee was medically 

incapacitated and unable to file, supporting the conclusion that the appeal should be 

subject to further review.” Tit. 15, § 3084.6(a)(4); see also CDCR Dep‟t. Operations 

Manual, Art. 53, § 54100.16. Mr. Cobb confirmed that if an inmate submitted an appeal 

beyond the requisite thirty days, the assigned appeals coordinator had the discretion to 

accept the appeal.

It is undisputed that an administrative grievance procedure existed at the time of 

the incident and that Plaintiff failed to timely file an appeal. Plaintiff argued that because 

of his psychiatric state, he did not have the mental capacity to file a grievance and he 

was, in any event, denied the materials needed to file such an appeal. He submitted 

medical records consistent with this argument. The Court finds Plaintiff‟s argument and 

supporting evidence persuasive and concludes that administrative grievance 

procedures were effectively unavailable to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff‟s medical records indicate that from January 20, 2011 to February 15, 

2011, Plaintiff was housed at PVSP on suicide watch and denied access to anything 

beyond a mattress, suicide gown, and a blanket. (ECF No. 89.) On January 20, 2011, 

Plaintiff displayed “unclear – nonverbal. suicidal behavior.” (ECF No. 92, S205.)

4

 He 

rubbed his right leg, and rocked back and forth, “appearing to self soothe.” (Id.) 

Beginning February 10, 2011, Plaintiff gained access to the shower but only at the 

discretion of staff. (ECF No. 89 at 35.) On February 12, 2011, he received a second 

blanket. (ECF No. 89 at 24, 36.) Plaintiff‟s February 15, 2011 discharge notes indicate 

that he was functioning at a GAF of 255and that he had “[m]inimal improvement from 

 

4

The page numbers are the bate stamps reflected on the medical records provided to the Court by 

defense counsel.

5

The Court takes judicial notice of the GAF (Global Assessment Functioning) scale in the DSM-IV-TR. 

See United States v. Murdoch, 98 F.3d 472, 479 (9th Cir. 1996) (taking judicial notice of the DSM-IV 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 7 of 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

8

time of admission” and “remained unstable.” (ECF No. 92, S185-186.)

While a February 2nd medical classification chrono indicates Plaintiff was 

approved for full duty work and was assessed as a low medical risk, it also incorrectly 

indicates that Plaintiff was receiving outpatient care. (ECF No. 84, 016-017.) Plaintiff 

was actually admitted to the “CTC” unit6, and was not being seen on an outpatient

basis. (ECF No. 92, S185-186; ECF No. 84, 003.) There are no other records which 

would suggest Plaintiff had access to the materials necessary to file a grievance on that 

date.

On February 15, 2011, Plaintiff was transferred to the Department of Mental 

Health Acute Psychiatric Care facility at Vacaville to receive a higher level of care.

(ECF No. 92, S015.) Plaintiff was again placed on “suicide precautions with nontear 

smock, nontear mattress.” (ECF No. 92, S010, S033, S088, S158.) On February 16, 

2011, Plaintiff was taken off “suicide precautions” but remained on limited issue of a 

nontear smock, mattress, and blanket until February 25, 2011 – a date beyond the thirty 

day period. (ECF No. 92, S158-160.) Records indicate that during this time period 

Plaintiff was soft spoken, had poor eye contact and provided minimal responses to 

questions. (ECF No. 92, S088.) 

It was not until after the thirty day time period, on February 25th, that Plaintiff was 

increased to “issue to blues” and allowed “reading materials.” (ECF No. 92, S036,

S056.) On that same date, Plaintiff “asked for clothing, a shave, reading glasses and a 

toothbrush.” (ECF No. 92, S037.) The psychiatrist noted that “steps toward[s] 

increased issue and programming” were reviewed. (Id.) Plaintiff was to remain on the 

“current treatment plan and move toward as much programming as safety allow[ed].” 

 

which contains the GAF scale); Fed. R. Evid. 201(a)-(b)(2). A GAF of 25 means a person‟s “behavior is 

considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations or serious impairment, in communication or 

judgment (e.g., sometimes incoherent, acts grossly inappropriately, suicidal preoccupation) or inability to 

function in almost all areas (e.g., stays in bed all day, no job, home, or friends).” Jackson v. Duffy, 2015 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121539, at *13 n.6 (C.D. Cal. March 24, 2015).

6 CTC is defined as “Patients do not require general acute care level of services but are in need of 

professionally supervised health care beyond that normally provided in the community on an outpatient 

basis.” (ECF No. 84, 017.)

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 8 of 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

9

(Id.) He was given a referral to an optometrist for eye glasses. (ECF No. 92, S056.) As 

of February 25, 2011, Plaintiff was functioning at a GAF score of 32.7 (Id.)

Defendants point to the fact that Plaintiff was attending and participating in 

groups and going to the yard as an indication that Plaintiff was not impaired and had the 

ability to submit a grievance. However, Plaintiff was not attending groups or placed 

back on full issue until after the thirty day period. (See ECF No. 92, S019, S036, S038,

S042, S101.) It also appears from Plaintiff‟s medical records that he was allowed use of 

a pen to sign medical forms, but Defendants have not provided any evidence to show

that Plaintiff had use of writing utensils for other purposes, and given Plaintiff‟s limited 

issue status, the records suggest that Plaintiff did not. (See, e.g., ECF No. 92, S188-

189, S198, S202.)

While the Court found both of Defendants‟ witnesses credible, neither Mr. Cobb 

nor Ms. Morgan could state that they had personal knowledge that Plaintiff had the 

mental ability and access to materials necessary to submit a grievance within the first 

thirty days following the incident. Plaintiff‟s sworn declaration, (ECF No. 78 at 10-12.),

and medical records reflect he did not. Plaintiff‟s position is further bolstered by the fact 

that he did not file any other appeal during the 30-day time period. (ECF Nos. 20-2 at 5; 

20-3 at 5-6; 20-4 at 5-8.). 

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff lacked the opportunity 

to timely file his grievance. See Marella, 568 F.3d at 1027 (finding that if an inmate

lacks the opportunity to timely file a grievance when he does not have access to the 

necessary forms or does not have the ability to complete them during the applicable 

time period, his failure to file does not defeat his claim). 

B. Improper Rejection of Appeal No. PVSP-O-12-00872

 

7

A GAF score between the range of 31 – 40 indicates an individual has “Some impairment in reality 

testing or communication (e.g., speech is at times illogical, obscure, or irrelevant) OR major impairment in 

several areas, such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood (e.g., depressed, 

man avoids friends, neglects family, and is unable to work . . .).” Coats v. Colvin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

133810, at *19 n. 2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2015).

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 9 of 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

10

Plaintiff submitted appeal PVSP-O-12-00872 on December 12, 2011. (ECF No. 

20-2 at 20.) On January 30, 2012, the appeal was rejected at the first level on the basis 

that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a material adverse effect on his welfare pursuant to 

Tit. 15, § 3084.6(b)(2). (ECF No. 20-2 at 18.) A material adverse effect is defined as 

follows:

. . . a harm or injury that is measurable or demonstrable, or 

the reasonable likelihood of such harm or injury. In either 

case, the harm or injury must be due to any policy, decision, 

action, condition, or omission by the department or its staff.

Tit., 15, § 3084(c).

In Plaintiff‟s appeal, he alleges that at his initial committee hearing he informed 

staff that he felt threatened by certain inmates, he was then placed in a cell with one of 

the inmates and forced to discuss the issue, and later placed in the same unit as the 

inmate. As a result, Plaintiff suffered a nervous breakdown and slit his wrists.

Plaintiff alleged a material adverse effect on his welfare when he claimed that the 

incident caused him to have a nervous breakdown and to slit his wrists. The Court finds 

the appeal was improperly screened out. 

C. Improper Cancellation of Appeal Nos. RJD-B-12-00796 and RJD-B-12-

01098 

On May 11, 2012, Mr. Cobb cancelled Appeal No. RJD-B-12-00796. Mr. Cobb 

testified that he did not treat the appeal as a resubmission of Plaintiff‟s Appeal No. 

PVSP-O-12-00872. He cancelled the appeal as untimely because the incident Plaintiff 

complained of occurred on January 19, 2011, which was more than thirty days before 

Plaintiff submitted the appeal at RJD. Mr. Cobb did not believe that Plaintiff‟s incapacity 

was an issue.

Whether considered on first impression or as a resubmission of Appeal No. 

PVSP-O-12-00872, Appeal No. RJD-B-12-00796 was incorrectly cancelled as untimely. 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 10 of 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

11

Plaintiff noted in his appeal that he had been in a CTC facility for slitting his wrists and 

then was placed in a crisis bed at an acute care ward of DMH. These facts were 

sufficient to put an appeals coordinator on notice that the appeal should have at least 

been subject to further review regarding Plaintiff‟s ability to submit the appeal during the 

requisite time period. Additionally, as the Court found above, Plaintiff did not have the 

ability or the opportunity to file an appeal within the first thirty days, excusing the 

untimeliness of his appeal. 

Likewise, Appeal No. RJD-B-12-01098 was incorrectly screened out. Mr. Cobb 

testified that the appeal was cancelled as untimely based on the date of the original 

incident of January 19, 2011. It was not treated as an appeal of the cancellation of 

Plaintiff‟s Appeal No. RJD-B-12-00796. In briefing the motion for summary judgment, 

Defendants effectively conceded that Plaintiff‟s Appeal No. RJD-B-12-01098 was 

erroneously cancelled.

D. Reasonable Belief that Administrative Remedies Effectively 

Unavailable

It is undisputed that Plaintiff filed three prison appeals relevant to exhaustion of 

the claims raised in his FAC: PVSP-O-12-00872, RJD-B-12-00796, and RJD-B-12-

01098. If Appeals PVSP-O-12-00872 and RJD-B-12-00796 were not improperly 

screened out, then they would have exhausted Plaintiff‟s claims if pursued through all 

three levels. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that his 

administrative remedies were effectively unavailable, and Defendants have not met their 

burden that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust. See Sapp, 623 F.3d at 823-24 (a plaintiff 

need only establish that he filed a grievance that would have exhausted his claim if 

pursued through all levels and that prison officials improperly screened out the 

grievance). 

Because the Court has determined that if Plaintiff‟s grievance was pursued 

through all levels it would have sufficed to exhaust his claim and that prison officials 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 11 of 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

12

screened his grievance or grievances for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by 

applicable regulations, the Court need not determine whether Plaintiff had a reasonable 

belief that his administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. 

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have not met their 

burden that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Court HEREBY 

RECOMMENDS that the action remain open, and Plaintiff be allowed to proceed on the 

merits of his claims. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure 

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 95 Filed 12/29/15 Page 12 of 12