Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00115/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00115-10/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

JASON S. HARPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:14-cv-00115-AWI-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO:

(1) GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (ECF 

No. 35)

(2) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FIND 

EXHAUSTION WAS THWARTED BY 

STAFF (ECF No. 33)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jason S. Harper is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 

On January 12, 2015, Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff filed an 

opposition (ECF No. 42), and Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 47). In addition, Plaintiff 

filed a Motion to for an order to find exhaustion was thwarted by Defendants (ECF No. 

Case 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 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

2

33), to which Defendants filed an opposition (ECF No. 43). Inasmuch as both Plaintiff’s 

motion and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment involve the same underlying facts 

and analysis of the same legal standards, the Court will address them both together

here.

II. LEGAL STANDARD – MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Any party may move for summary judgment, and “[t]he [C]ourt shall grant 

summary judgment if the movant shows 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). Each party’s position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be 

supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not 

limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) “showing that the 

materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an 

adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed R. Civ. P. 

56(c)(1). 

“Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the 

movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other 

than for the moving party.” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th 

Cir. 2007). If the burden of proof at trial rests with the nonmoving party, then the moving 

party need only point to “an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s 

case.” Id. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must point to 

"specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. (quoting Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)).

In evaluating the evidence, “the [C]ourt does not make credibility determinations 

or weigh conflicting evidence,” and “it draws all inferences in the light most favorable to 

Case 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 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

3

the nonmoving party.” Id.

III. FACTUAL SUMMARY

The Court finds that the following facts are undisputed:

Plaintiff’s cell at Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility was searched and 

Plaintiff was allegedly restrained with excessive force by Defendants Huffman and Curry

on August 11, 2013. 

On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff lodged Appeal Log No. SATF-D-13-03708 with 

the Appeals Office. The appeal discussed the cell search, seizure of Plaintiff’s personal 

items, use of force, and retaliation. The grievance was processed for first level review 

and granted in part on October 22, 2013. Plaintiff had 30 days to seek second level 

review. CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15 § 3084.8(b)(3). Plaintiff’s second-level appeal, dated 

November 20, 2013, was received at the second-level appeal office on December 6, 

2013. The reviewer cancelled the appeal that day because it was filed outside of the 30-

day time limit. Plaintiff had thirty days within which to appeal the cancellation in a 

separate appeal. CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 15 §§ 3084.8(b)(3), 3084.6(e). Plaintiff did not 

appeal the cancellation within the time limit. In April 2014, three months after Plaintiff 

had filed suit in the instant action, the appeals office sent Plaintiff a form requesting an 

amended response to Appeal Log. No. SATF-D-03708. Plaintiff sent numerous inquiries 

regarding the nature of the response requested. In August 2014, he appealed the 

original cancellation of Appeal Log. No. SATF-D-03708; this appeal was rejected at the 

first level for failure to meet the 30-day time limit for appealing cancellations. (ECF No. 

33, at 32.)

After Plaintiff was charged with an RVR for “Resisting Staff Resulting in the Use of 

Force” in connection with the incident on August 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed Appeal Log No. 

Case 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 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

4

SATF-D-13-03689. In this appeal, he complained that the RVR did not list all witnesses 

to the incident and reiterated his challenge regarding Huffman’s use of force. The 

appeal was received and rejected at the first level of review on September 16, 2013 

because Plaintiff had not attached supporting documents. After Plaintiff corrected this 

deficiency, the appeal was denied at the second level on November 7, 2013. Plaintiff’s 

appeal to the third level was rejected on December 10, 2013 for lack of supporting 

documentation. Plaintiff resubmitted the appeal on February 24, 2014 (by which time 

Plaintiff had already filed suit in the instant action) and it was cancelled for failure to file 

within the 30-day time limit. Plaintiff did not appeal the cancellation.

IV. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

A. Defendants’ Arguments

Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative 

remedies. They acknowledge that Plaintiff filed two grievances relating to the incident 

giving rise to the claims in this action, but argue that he never completed the appeals 

process. Defendants point out that Appeal Log No. SATF-D-13-03708 was cancelled at 

the second level because the appeals office did not receive it within the 30-day window, 

and that Appeal Log No. SATF-D-13-03689 was rejected at the third level for failure to 

include supporting documentation. They observe that Plaintiff did not appeal the 

cancellation or rejection. They argue in their reply (ECF No. 47) and their opposition to 

plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 43) that the actions Plaintiff claims “thwarted” exhaustion

occurred subsequent to the filing of his complaint, and thus should not affect the analysis 

of whether administrative remedies were exhausted before the suit was initiated.

B. Plaintiff’s Arguments

Plaintiff does not dispute that he never fully exhausted Appeal Log No. SATF-DCase 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 05/12/15 Page 4 of 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

5

13-03708 or Appeal Log No. SATF-D-13-03689. Instead, he argues that the 

administrative remedy was rendered effectively unavailable by appeals coordinators’ 

obstructive tactics. Specifically, he alleges that CDCR officials “join together to harass... 

and retaliate... against Plaintiff with a combination of unethical acts, refuse to answer,... 

use the inmate appeals screening form... to manipulate improper, excessive and 

repetitive delays... detaching inmate’s supporting documentations from 602 to inmate 

with written statement refusing to process 602 because no supporting documents 

accompany 602, in screening out 602s.” (ECF No. 42, at 4). He states that CDCR’s 

conduct amounts to “moral turpitude.” (Id.) 

However, Plaintiff does not indicate that the cancellation of Appeal Log No. SATFD-13-03708 on December 6, 2013 or the rejection of Appeal Log No. SATF-D-13-03689 

on December 10, 2013 was improper. Rather, he devotes the bulk of his opposition to 

the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42) and the motion for an order finding that 

his administrative remedies were thwarted (ECF No. 33) to challenging CDCR’s

allegedly dilatory tactics in 2014, after he had already initiated the present litigation.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 05/12/15 Page 5 of 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

6

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 v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 

2014). Defendants have the 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)).

An inmate may be excused from the exhaustion requirement where administrative 

remedies were “effectively unavailable.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1173 (citing Nunez v. 

Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2010)). An administrative remedy may be 

“effectively unavailable” where prison officials fail to respond to a properly filed 

grievance, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-823 (9th Cir. 2010); erroneously inform 

inmates that additional paperwork is necessary, causing the inmate to miss filing 

deadlines, Nunez, 591 F.3d at 1226; or fail to provide an inmate with either grievance 

forms or information about the grievance procedure, despite his complaints or requests. 

Case 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 05/12/15 Page 6 of 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

7

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1177; see also Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 

2009) (inmate would not fail to timely file where he did not have access to the necessary 

forms within the filing time period).

C. Analysis

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that 

Defendants have demonstrated an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact on the 

issue of exhaustion.

Defendants have shown that Plaintiff failed to obtain a third-level disposition of 

either Appeal Log No. SATF-D-13-03708 or Appeal Log No. SATF-D-13-03689, the only 

two appeals relevant to the underlying facts of this case, and that Plaintiff also failed to 

timely appeal the respective rejection and cancellation of these appeals.

Plaintiff, for his part, has provided no evidence that he did, in fact: (1) successfully 

exhaust either of the above appeals; (2) successfully appeal the cancellation or rejection 

of either appeal; or (3) file a separate appeal on the same issues that he did properly 

exhaust. 

Nor has he provided evidence that administrative remedies were rendered 

effectively unavailable. Although he makes general allegations of impropriety, “moral 

turpitude,” and deliberate delay on the part of CDCR, he does not argue, much less 

support such argument with concrete evidence, that either the cancellation of Appeal 

Log No. SATF-D-13-03708 or the rejection of Appeal Log No. SATF-D-13-03689 was 

made for improper reasons. That is, he does not suggest that his second level appeal in 

SATF-D-13-03708 was in fact timely filed, or that his third-level appeal in SATF-D-13-

03689 did have all the required documents attached.

 CDCR conduct after January 2014 is irrelevant to the Court’s analysis because it 

Case 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 05/12/15 Page 7 of 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

8

occurred after the filing of the complaint. The PLRA requires administrative remedies to 

have been exhausted prior to the filing of a federal lawsuit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones 

v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). The undisputed facts in this case indicate that this 

requirement was not met.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of putting forth sufficient 

evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding exhaustion. Based on the foregoing, 

the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

(ECF No. 35) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion to find efforts to exhaust were 

thwarted (ECF No. 33) be DENIED, thus concluding this action in its entirety.

These Findings and Recommendations 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: May 11, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00115-JLT-HBK Document 48 Filed 05/12/15 Page 8 of 8