Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00462/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00462-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVIN TREVONE LAMAR,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SOUN and TOON,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00462-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

EXHAUSTION BASED MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT1

(Doc. No. 28)

Pending before the Court is the exhaustion-based Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 

Defendants Soun and Toon on November 20, 2024. (Doc. No. 28, “MSJ”). Plaintiff, proceeding 

pro se, filed an Opposition, (Doc. No. 30), and Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. No. 33). Finding 

no genuine dispute of material fact, the Court grants Defendants’ MSJ.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff Devin Trevone Lamar (“Plaintiff” or “Lamar”), a former county jail detainee, 

initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. (Doc. 

No. 1). Plaintiff proceeds on his original Complaint, as screened2, that alleges claims of Eighth 

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 

No. 35).

2 On November 13, 2023, the Court severed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lewis and Franco, 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 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

2

Amendment excessive use of force against Defendants Soun and Toon. (Doc. No. 1, 13).

The Complaint alleges that on or about November 28 or 29, 2020, while Plaintiff was 

being held as a pretrial detainee at the Fresno County Jail (“FCJ”), he was forced back into his 

cell by Corporal Soun after stating safety concerns to Toon regarding Plaintiff’s cellmate. (Doc. 

No. 1 at 3). Later that day, Plaintiff vacated his cell and took all his belongings with him to the 

dayroom, where he laid down in the prone position. (Id.). Soon thereafter, Corporal Soun came 

into the dayroom with a “squadron of officers” and Soun began punching Plaintiff. (Id.). While 

Soun was punching Plaintiff, Defendant Toon placed his knee on Plaintiff’s neck. (Id. at 4). 

Plaintiff did not resist. (Id.). Then Corporal Soun took Plaintiff into a hallway, slammed him up 

against a wall, twisted both of Plaintiff’s arms, and told him, “Welcome to Fresno County Jail.” 

(Id.). As a result of this incident and another excessive force incident at FCJ (which is the subject 

of a now-severed claim), Plaintiff suffers from trauma, emotional distress, and mental anguish. 

(Id. at 4-5). As relief, Plaintiff seeks $2,000,000 in damages and injunctive relief to stop the 

Defendants from harming him. (Id. at 6).

B. Defendant’s Exhaustion-Based Motion for Summary Judgment 

Defendants timely filed the instant exhaustion based MSJ on November 20, 2024. (Doc. 

No. 28). In support, Defendants submit a memorandum of points and authorities (Doc. No. 28);

the declaration of Captain Adam Esmay accompanied by various exhibits (Doc. No. 28-1); a 

Rand warning to Plaintiff (Doc. No. 28-2); a Notice of Motion (Doc. No. 28-3); and Statement of 

Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. No. 28-4). Defendants contend the uncontroverted evidence 

proves Plaintiff did not properly and fully exhaust his available administrative remedies that are 

available at the FCJ regarding his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Soun and Toon. 

(See generally Doc. No. 28). In fact, Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not even initiate the 

administrative grievance process with respect to the November 28-29, 2020 incident and cannot 

plausibly contend that he exhausted his administrative remedies. (Id. at 14). Accordingly, they 

argue they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

which were found to be cognizable but unrelated to the claims against Soun and Toon and that they would 

have been time-barred if dismissed. (Doc. No. 13).

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Exhaustion-Based MSJ

On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. (Doc. No. 30). Plaintiff’s 

Opposition comprises only two pages and does not comply with Local Rule 260. Specifically, 

Plaintiff does not reproduce Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts and “admit those facts 

that are undisputed and deny those that are disputed, including with each denial a citation to the 

particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or 

other document relied upon in support of that denial.” (L.R. 260(b)) (E.D. Cal. 2023). Rather, 

Plaintiff uses the Opposition to “explain why [he] wasn’t able to fully exhaust [his] administrative 

remedies.” (Doc. No. 30 at 1). Plaintiff asserts that he did submit a grievance regarding the 

November 28, 2020 incident “on or around 12-12-2020” but that he never received a response. 

(Id. at 1). Plaintiff also contends that on another occasion an FCJ officer took his grievance, but 

he never received a response. (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff states that he submitted a grievance regarding 

the January 17, 2021 excessive use of force incident involving Officers Lewis and Franco (now 

severed from this action) but was unable to fully exhaust that grievance due to his transfer to 

CDCR and because he never received a response. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff asks the Court to deny 

summary judgment based on his alleged efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id.).

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Summary Judgment Standard

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). A fact is 

material where it is (1) relevant to an element of a claim or a defense under the substantive law 

and (2) would affect the outcome of the suit. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 

247 (1987). 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of proving the absence 

of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). When 

the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and set 

forth specific facts by affidavits, deposition testimony, documents, or discovery responses, 

showing there is a genuine issue that must be resolved by trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 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

4

Pacific Gulf Shipping Co. v. Vigorous Shipping & Trading S.A., 992 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 

2021). A mere “scintilla of evidence” in support of the nonmoving party’s position is 

insufficient. In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather, the 

evidence must allow a reasonable juror, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, 

to return a verdict in that party’s favor. Id.

In an exhaustion-based summary judgment motion, the defendant bears 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, however, with defendant. Id. 

The Court has carefully reviewed and considered all arguments, points and authorities, 

declarations, exhibits, statements of undisputed facts and responses thereto, if any, objections, and 

other papers filed by the parties. The omission to an argument, document, paper, or objection is 

not to be construed that the Court did not consider the argument, document, paper, or objection. 

Instead, the Court thoroughly reviewed and considered the evidence it deemed admissible, 

material, and appropriate for purposes of this Order. 

B. Exhaustion Under the PLRA

Under the PLRA, “[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). The exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about prison life,” including 

Bivens claims. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is a condition 

precedent to filing a civil rights claim. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). 

The PLRA recognizes no exception to the exhaustion requirement, and the court may not 

recognize a new exception, even in “special circumstances.” Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 648 

(2016). The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 4 of 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

5

prisoner.” Id. at 639. A prison’s internal grievance process controls whether the grievance 

satisfies the PLRA exhaustion requirement. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007).

An inmate must exhaust available remedies but is not required to exhaust unavailable 

remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). “To be available, a 

remedy must be available ‘as a practical matter’; it must be ‘capable of use; at hand.’” Id. 

(quoting Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936–37 (9th Cir. 2005)). “Accordingly, an inmate is 

required to exhaust those, but only those, grievance procedures that are ‘capable of use’ to obtain 

‘some relief for the action complained of.’” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858 (2016) (quoting

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738 (2001)).

Failure to exhaust under the PLRA is “an affirmative defense the defendant must plead 

and prove.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 204. It is the defendant’s burden to prove that there was an 

available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner failed to exhaust that remedy. Albino, 747

F.3d at 1172. “Once the defendant has carried that burden, the prisoner has the burden of 

production. That is, the burden shifts to the prisoner to come forward with evidence showing that 

there is something in his case that made the existing and generally available administrative 

remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. If the court concludes that the prisoner failed to 

exhaust available administrative remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. See

Jones, 549 U.S. at 223–24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2005).

C. FCJ Grievance Procedures

The FCJ inmate grievance system involves a structured two-stage process designed to 

allow inmates to alert FCJ to grievances concerning any condition of confinement at the Jail, 

including, but not limited to, officer conduct, disciplinary actions, food, mail, medical care, legal

services, and telephone. (Doc. No. 28-1, ¶ 22). Proper compliance with inmate grievance 

procedures requires an inmate to provide specific information related to a grievance on FCJ’s 

Inmate Grievance Form, J-105A (“Grievance Form”), including: 1) the employee(s) involved in 

the incident (if applicable); 2) the identity of any witnesses; 3) the date and time of the alleged 

incident; 4) the specific type of grievance; and 5) a description of the important details of the 

alleged incident and other relevant information that led to the filing of the grievance. This 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 5 of 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

6

information, along with appeals information, is entered into a grievance registry where the 

pertinent information is stored. (Id. ¶ 23). After an inmate submits a timely, properly completed, 

and signed Grievance Form to floor staff, an initial attempt can be made to resolve the complaint 

or problem by the correctional officer. (Id. ¶ 24). Under certain circumstances, the Grievance 

Form is immediately submitted to the Bureau Commander. (Id. ¶ 25).

Inmate Grievance Form, J-105A, and the Handbook state that an inmate has 14 days from 

the date of the alleged incident to submit a grievance. (Id. ¶ 26). Failure to submit a grievance 

within the required 14 days of the alleged incident is considered abandonment of the grievance 

and is grounds for automatic rejection without investigation. (Id. ¶ 27). 

After a grievance is received by FCJ staff, it is placed in the Grievance Bin located in the 

Distribution room prior to the end of shift. (Id. ¶ 28). Based upon the findings of the initial 

investigation into a submitted grievance, the investigating staff member shall make a 

recommendation to either sustain or not sustain the inmate’s grievance. (Id. ¶ 29). After the 

initial decision is made, the grievance, along with the recommendation from the investigating 

staff member is reviewed by the Lieutenant or Manager/Supervisor, who makes a final decision 

whether to sustain or not sustain the grievance. (Id. ¶ 30).

FCJ’s grievance policies and procedures provide that a grievance shall be investigated and 

processed for review within a reasonable amount of time after submission, usually with 14-days. 

(Id. ¶ 31). Upon conclusion of the grievance review process, FCJ provides the inmate with a 

copy of its written response, entitled “Inmate Grievance Review Report.” (Id. ¶ 32). If the 

inmate’s grievance is not able to be resolved at this initial step, or the inmate is not satisfied with 

the Inmate Grievance Review Report, an inmate must submit a timely, properly completed, and 

signed second-level Inmate Grievance Appeal Form, J-105B (“Appeal Form”). (Id. ¶ 33).

Pursuant to FCJ’s policies and procedures, inmates are required to submit an Appeal Form 

within five (5) calendar days from the date of receipt of the Inmate Grievance Review Report. 

(Id. ¶ 34). An Appeal Form may only be submitted in response to an already grieved incident. 

(Id. ¶ 35). At the times relevant herein, FCJ routed all inmate grievance “Appeal” forms to the 

“Bureau Commander” for review and response. (Id. 36). At the times relevant herein, FCJ 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 6 of 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

7

grievance policies and procedures provided that “within thirty (30) workdays or as soon as 

reasonably practicable,” the Bureau Commander would issue a written response on the inmate’s 

Appeal form, either affirming or reversing the decision of the Lieutenant and then provide a copy 

to the inmate. (Id. ¶ 37). At the times relevant herein, the “Bureau Commander’s” decision as to 

the inmate’s grievance “Appeal” is final and, unless otherwise noted in the Commander’s written 

response, deemed an exhaustion of the issue(s) accepted for Appeal. (Id. ¶ 38).

FCJ’s policies and procedures provide that a defective grievance can be denied on 

procedural grounds without addressing the substantive issue. However, if the defect on which the 

rejection was based is correctable, the inmate is entitled to a reasonable time extension within 

which to correct the defect and resubmit the grievance or appeal. (Id. ¶ 39). FCJ grievance 

policies and procedures provide that “ordinarily, five (5) calendar days from the date of return to 

the inmate was reasonable for resubmission” of a corrected grievance. (Id. ¶ 40). FCJ grievance 

policies and procedures also provide that staff had discretion to accept, and were to consider 

accepting, a grievance or appeal “that raised a sensitive or problematic issue, even though that 

submission may have been somewhat untimely.” (Id. ¶ 41).

FCJ’s Inmate Handbook that is provided to inmates upon booking, warns that under the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), inmates must completely exhaust the Jail’s 

internal grievance and appeals processes prior to filing any complaint with the court. (Id. ¶ 42).

ANALYSIS

A. Material Facts Regarding Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Following a thorough review of the evidence submitted,

3

the Court finds these material 

facts are deemed undisputed, unless otherwise indicated:

3 The Court notes that Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts

(“Statement”) as required under the Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 260(b) (directing “[a]ny party 

opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication [to] reproduce the itemized facts in the 

Statement of Undisputed Facts and admit those facts that are undisputed and deny those that are disputed, 

including with each denial a citation to the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, 

interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied upon in support of that denial.”). Thus, the 

Court may properly take all facts set forth in Defendants’ Statement as undisputed. Nevertheless, the 

Court has considered the evidence contained in Plaintiff’s verified Complaint and his Opposition in 

determining whether the facts are undisputed under applicable legal standards.

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 7 of 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

8

• Plaintiff was an inmate in the Fresno County Jail (“FCJ”) between June 19, 2020, and 

February 12, 2021. (Doc. No. 28-1, ¶ 11).

• Between June 19, 2020, and February 12, 2021, Plaintiff utilized FCJ’s grievance process 

to grieve eight separate incidents. (Id. ¶ 12).

• Plaintiff’s first grievance was submitted on December 4, 2020, and his last was submitted 

on January 31, 2021. (Id. ¶ 13).

• Plaintiff exhausted FCJ’s administrative remedies process for two of his eight grievances. 

(Id. ¶ 14).

• Plaintiff’s operative complaint is predicated on an event he alleges occurred on either 

November 28 or November 29, 2020. (Id. ¶ 15).

• Plaintiff submitted grievances for events he alleges took place on October 13, 2020 

[Grievance No. 2020120036], November 25, 2020 [Grievance No. 2020120037], and 

December 12, 2020. (Id. ¶ 16)

• The Fresno County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for the overall operation of FCJ. (Id. 

¶ 17).

• In November of 2020, FCJ had in place established inmate grievance processes and 

procedures pursuant to Section 1073 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, for 

use and accessible by inmates, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, which 

included written and adopted official Department Policy entitled “Policies and Procedures 

No. E-140: Inmate Grievance Procedures,” and an “Inmate Orientation Handbook” 

(“Handbook”). (Id. ¶ 18).

• The Inmate Orientation Handbook is given to each inmate and explains the rules and 

procedures of FCJ, including FCJ’s inmate grievance process. (Id. ¶ 19).

• At all times relevant to his allegations, Plaintiff was aware of the inmate grievance process 

and how to appeal an unfavorable decision. (Id. ¶ 20).

• Plaintiff grieved eight separate incidents while in custody at FCJ, and exhausted two of his 

grievances pursuant to FCJ’s policies and procedures. However, none of Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 8 of 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

9

grievances allege that Defendants Soun and Toon used excessive force in their dealings 

with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 21).

• During the relevant time period, FCJ’s grievance process involved a two-step process for 

alerting prison officials to any concerns related to conditions of confinement at the jail. 

(Id. ¶ 22). 

• Proper compliance with FCJ’s grievance procedures requires an inmate to provide specific 

information related to a grievance on FCJ’s Inmate Grievance Form, J-105A (“Grievance 

Form”), including: 1) the employee involved in the incident (if applicable); 2) the identity 

of any witnesses; 3) the date and time of the alleged incident; 4) the specific type of 

grievance; and 5) a description of the important details of the alleged incident and other 

relevant information that led to the filing of the grievance. (Id. ¶ 23). 

• On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a grievance regarding alleged events that 

occurred on November 21, 2020. None of these allegations include Defendants or the use 

of excessive force. (Id. ¶ 43).

• On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff received FCJ’s response to this grievance. (Id. ¶ 44).

• Seventeen days later, Plaintiff appealed FCJ’s response to his December 4, 2020, 

grievance. (Id. ¶ 45).

• Even though Plaintiff’s appeal was untimely, FCJ reviewed Plaintiff’s Grievance Appeal 

and responded. (Id. ¶ 46).

• On the same day, December 4, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a second grievance for an 

incident that allegedly occurred on November 25, 2020. This grievance does not name 

Soun or Toon and does not concern the use of excessive force. (Id. ¶ 47).

• On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff received FCJ’s response to this grievance. (Id. ¶ 48).

• Plaintiff submitted a Grievance Appeal on December 27, 2020, approximately one week 

past the required date. (Id. ¶ 49).

• Even though Plaintiff submitted a Grievance Appeal outside the required five days, FCJ 

reviewed Plaintiff’s Grievance Appeal and responded. (Id. ¶ 50).

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 9 of 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

10

• Subsequent to Plaintiff submitting a grievance on December 4, 2020, and prior to the date 

he was transferred, February 12, 2021, Plaintiff submitted, but failed to exhaust, an 

additional six grievances. (Id. ¶ 51).

• None of the grievances submitted by Plaintiff between June 19, 2020, and the date he was 

transferred, February 12, 2021, mention Defendants Soun or Toon or allege events on 

which Plaintiff bases his Complaint as screened. (Id. ¶ 51).

B. Failure to Exhaust Plaintiff’s Claims Against Soun and Toon

It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies as to his 

claim against Defendants Soun and Toon. Indeed, Plaintiff admitted as much on the face of his 

initial Complaint and in a response to the Court’s subsequent Order to Show Cause (“OTSC”). 

(See Doc. No. 1 at 3; Doc. No. 8). In his response to the Court’s July 13, 2023 OTSC, Plaintiff 

stated:

I factually submitted grievances prior to filing this suit. The 

grievance against Corporal V. Soun and Z. Toon was submitted 

December 2020. The grievance against T. Lewis and M. Franco 

was submitted January-February 2021. I filed this suit in MarchApril 2023. The grievances copies I mailed off to a relative of 

mines who still has them till this day. Also the grievances 

submitted should be in the jail system database. I wasn’t able to 

appeal any grievances due to Sergeants not conducting grievance 

response interviews, either. For sure the grievances were at least 

submitted prior to filing a suit.

(Doc. No. 8 at 1). Based on that response, the Court discharged the OTSC but noted that “[t]he 

discharge of the Order to Show Cause is not a ruling on the merits of whether Plaintiff properly 

and fully exhausted his administrative remedies prior to initiating this action.” (Doc. No. 10 at 4 

¶ 5).

In his Response and his Opposition to Defendants’ MSJ, Plaintiff contends that he made a 

good faith attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies but that due to obstruction by FCJ 

officials the grievance process was unavailable to him and thus he should be excused from 

compliance. (See Doc. Nos. 8, 30). As noted above, “An inmate . . . must exhaust available 

remedies, but need not exhaust unavailable ones.” Ross, 578 U.S. 632. The Supreme Court has 

articulated specific circumstances where a failure to exhaust may be excused due to the 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 10 of 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

11

unavailability of administrative remedies:

an administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what 

regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a 

simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to 

provide any relief to aggrieved inmates . . . Suppose, for example, 

that a prison handbook directs inmates to submit their grievances to 

a particular administrative office—but in practice that office 

disclaims the capacity to consider those petitions. The procedure is 

not then “capable of use” for the pertinent purpose.

. . . 

Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, 

practically speaking, incapable of use. In this situation, some 

mechanism exists to provide relief, but no ordinary prisoner can 

discern or navigate it. As the Solicitor General put the point: When 

rules are “so confusing that . . . no reasonable prisoner can use 

them,” then “they're no longer available.”

. . .

And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart 

inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through 

machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.

Ross, 578 U.S. at 643-44.

Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court construes his Response to the Court’s Order 

to Show Cause as incorporated within his Opposition to Defendants’ MSJ. In the Response, 

Plaintiff asserts that he submitted a grievance in December 2020, but that he “wasn’t able to 

appeal any grievances due to Sergeants not conducting grievance response interviews.” (Doc. 

No. 8 at 1). It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s reference to his ability to “appeal” is to his initial 

grievance or to a second level appeal. Plaintiff also notes that he mailed copies of his grievances 

“to a relative of mines [sic] who still has them to this day.” (Id.).

In his Opposition Plaintiff provides additional detail regarding his alleged exhaustion 

efforts. He states that he “submit[ed] a grievance on or around 12-12-2020 while [he] was housed 

on MJ-FF-01[,] it was around night shift. [He] obtained the receiving officer[’]s name. Her last 

name is Araguz. She signed the grievance even though she was reluctant at first. [He] received 

the yellow copy and she receive the original white copy.” (Doc. No. 30 at 1). Plaintiff further 

contends that he never received any grievance response “even after submitting a multitude of 

requests [sic] forms to them.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges other instances in which he attempted to 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 11 of 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

12

submit grievances, but FCJ officers mishandled them. (Id. at 1-2). He asserts that “[Officer] 

Araguz was responsible for handling the documentation and didn’t properly submit [his] 

grievance for the 11-28-2020 incident.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff does not, however, cite to any 

evidence in the record in support of these claims.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s proffered evidence is insufficient to establish a genuine dispute of 

material fact. In a motion for summary judgment, once the moving party has demonstrated the 

absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth 

specific facts by affidavits, deposition testimony, documents, or discovery responses, showing 

there is a genuine issue that must be resolved by trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Pacific Gulf 

Shipping Co., 992 F.3d at 897. A mere “scintilla of evidence” in support of the nonmoving 

party’s position is insufficient. In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d at 387. The evidence 

must allow a reasonable juror, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, to return a 

verdict in that party’s favor. Id.

Here, Defendants have demonstrated the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact as 

to Plaintiff’s non-exhaustion of his administrative remedies. They cite FCJ’s records which show 

that while Plaintiff exhausted two grievances and submitted six other grievances during the 

relevant period, none of the grievances pertain to excessive use of force claims against 

Defendants Soun and Toon. (See generally Doc. No. 28-1).

Thus, Plaintiff is required to identify specific evidence in the record showing a genuine 

dispute of material fact as to his exhaustion of administrative remedies. Instead, Plaintiff has only 

made bald assertions, about having submitted a grievance in December 2020 that was mishandled 

by an Officer Faraguz. Plaintiff does not provide an affidavit, a copy of the grievance (which he 

claims he mailed to a relative), or any other evidence to support this claim. A “summary

judgment motion cannot be defeated by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by 

factual data[,]” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Consequently, Plaintiff’s 

bare assertions as to this Officer are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material facts as to 

his exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Uhuru v. Singh, 2021 WL 5867463, at *5 (E.D. 

Cal. Dec. 10, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17722608 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 12 of 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

13

2022) (“plaintiff’s bare allegation of deplorable record keeping is not sufficient to overcome 

defendant's evidence that he failed to submit a grievance regarding his claims against 

defendant”); see also Jordan v. Arce, 2022 WL 17417869, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2022) 

(“[p]laintiff’s bald and conclusory assertion that he submitted a ‘grievance’ that disappeared does 

not overcome Defendant’s evidence that he failed to submit a grievance regarding the claims at 

issue in this action”), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 425761 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 

2023); Dennis v. Castrillo, 2021 WL 5165219, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2021) (“[i]n the absence 

of something more than bare allegations, plaintiff cannot be found to have created a genuine 

dispute of fact over whether the grievance system was unavailable to him.”). 

Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff did not properly and 

fully exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff presents 

no evidence to the contrary. Thus, there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims as to Defendants Soun and Toon were unexhausted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendants Soun and Toon’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 28) is

GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and CLOSE

this case.

Dated: January 2, 2025 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 36 Filed 01/02/25 Page 13 of 13