Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519-13/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

BRIAN ESPRITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. SAESEE, et al.,,

Defendant**.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RE DEFENDANTS‟ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF NO. 72)

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Pending before the Court is Defendants‟ motion for summary 

judgment filed January 16, 2015. Plaintiff opposed the motion on April 17, 2015. Defendant‟s 

amended reply was filed August 24, 2015..

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action proceeds on the July 20, 2012, second amended complaint (ECF No. 17.) 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR) at Wasco State Prison, brings this action against correctional officials employed by the 

CDCR at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran (SATF), where the 

events at issue occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants Correctional Counselor A. Saesee, 

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 9
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

Institutional Gang Investigative (IGI) Officer Velazquez, IGI Officer Furlong, Lieutenant Goss, 

Correctional Officer (C/O) S. Hill, C/O S. Torres, C/O J. Davis, M. Lopez, A. Ballesteros and Y. 

Magallon. Plaintiff sets forth claims of excessive force, confiscation of property, deliberate 

indifference to medical needs, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 

denial of access to the courts. On April 15, 2013, an order was entered, finding that the second 

amended complaint stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Saesee, Hill, Torres, Davis, 

Lopez, Ballesteros and Magallon for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. (ECF No. 26). On June 20, 2013, an order was entered by the District Court, 

adopting the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, ordering that this action 

shall proceed only against Defendants Saesee, Hill, Torres, Davis, Lopez, Ballesteros and 

Magallon for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The order dismissed 

all remaining claims and Defendants. (ECF No. 33.) All Defendants have answered and have 

filed the motion for summary judgment that is before the Court. (ECF No. 72.)1 Plaintiff has 

filed an opposition. (ECF No. 77) and an amended opposition ECF No. 87.) Defendants have 

filed a reply (ECF No. 91.) 

II.

ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that on February 2, 2010, Defendants Saesee, Hill, Torres, Davis, Lopez, 

Ballesteros and Magallon assaulted him. Plaintiff specifically alleges that he was initially struck 

by Defendants Saesee, Hill and Torres. Due to numerous blows to the head, Plaintiff fell to the 

ground and was repeatedly beaten and kicked, resulting in injuries to his left ear, right cheek and 

eye, right shoulder, right wrist (including “cuts down to the bone.”) One of the responding 

officers, Defendant Davis, applied his full body weight via his knee to the handcuffs on 

Plaintiff‟s right wrist, causing cuts. While Plaintiff was face down on the ground in restraints, 

Defendant Lopez grabbed Plaintiff‟s right foot and began slamming it up and down on the 

 

1 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies on September 19, 

2013 (ECF No. 37). On November 17, 2014, an order was entered by the District Court, adopting the findings and 

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denying the motion to dismiss without prejudice to re-filing the 

motion as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (ECF 

No. 68.) 

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 9
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

concrete in an apparent attempt to cause further injury. Defendants Ballesteros and Magallon 

then carried Plaintiff by the back of his shirt hem and the middle chain between his handcuffs 

over 100 yards to the program office, choking Plaintiff to unconsciousness, then dumping him 

into a standing “one-man‟ cage head first, causing further facial injuries as well as bloody left 

toes due to being dragged 100 yards over asphalt. Plaintiff‟s shoes and socks were removed 

during the initial assault. Prior to being taken to the program office, Plaintiff overheard an 

unknown officer say, “Lieutenant Goss gave us a „green light‟ (slang for „thumbs up‟) but you 

guys are gonna mess it up,” in response to the length and intensity of the beating. (April 15, 

2013, order screening the second amended complaint, at 3:4-20 (ECF No. 26.))

III.

ANALYSIS

A. Summary Judgment Standard

The failure to exhaust in compliance with section 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense 

under which Defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. 

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2010); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 

2003). On April 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 

decision overruling Wyatt with respect to the proper procedural device for raising the affirmative 

defense of exhaustion under § 1997e(a). Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168-69 (9th Cir. 

2014)(en banc). Following the decision in Albino, defendants may raise exhaustion deficiencies 

as an affirmative defense under § 1997e(a) in either (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6)or (2) a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.2 Id. If the Court concludes that 

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice of the portions of 

the complaint barred by § 1997e(e). Jones, 549 U.S. at 223-24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 

1175-76 (9th Cir. 2005).

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there “is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 

 

2 Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are only appropriate “[i]n the rare event a failure to exhaust is clear on the 

face of the complaint.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1162.

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 3 of 9
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

R. Civ. P. 56(a); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (“If there is a genuine dispute about material facts, 

summary judgment will not be granted.”) A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must 

support the assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including 

depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations 

(including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or 

other materials, or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a 

genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible to support the fact.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, 

but is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School 

Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court 

“must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 

Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 

2011). The Court must liberally construe Plaintiff‟s filings because he is a pro se prisoner. 

Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

In a summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the 

defendants have the initial burden to prove “that there was an available administrative remedy, 

and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available administrative remedy.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 

1172. If the defendants carry 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 proof remains with defendants, however. Id. The ultimate burden of proof remains 

with defendants, however. Id. “If material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be 

denied, and the district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts.” Id. at 1166.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the State of California provides its 

prisoners and parolees the right to appeal administratively “any policy, decision, action, 

condition, or omission by the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate 

as having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. 

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 4 of 9
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

Tit. 15 § 3084.1(a). The process is initiated by submitting a CDCR form 602. Id, at § 3084.2(a). 

At the time of the events giving rise to the present action, California prisoners were 

required to submit appeals within fifteen working days of the event being appealed, and the 

process was initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some 

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c) (2009). Four levels were 

involved, including the informal level, first formal level, second formal level and third formal 

level. Id. at § 3084.5 (2009). A final decision at the third level of review satisfies the exhaustion 

requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).3In order to satisfy § 1997e(a), California state 

prisoners are required to use this process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. 

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

B. Defendants’ Undisputed Facts

In support of their motion, Defendants submit the declarations of Pleasant Valley State 

Prison (PVSP) Appeals Coordinator J. Morgan, SATF Appeals Coordinator M. Hildreth and 

Acting Chief of Office of Appeals (OOA) R. Briggs, and exhibits attached thereto. Defendants‟ 

evidence establishes the following.

Plaintiff knew about and utilized the CDCR grievance process between February 2, 2010, 

when the events at issue occurred, and March 28, 2011, when he commenced this action. None 

of the appeals submitted by Plaintiff during that time frame involved allegations of excessive 

force by SATF officers. (Compl. 1, 4-6; Hildreth Decl. ¶¶ 9-12; Morgan Decl. ¶ 6.) The only 

appeal accepted for review during that time period involved both SATF and PVSP, so the appeal 

was split and adjudicated under different appeal numbers at each institution: Appeal Log Nos. 

SATF-O-10-01661 and PVSP-S-10-00452. (Hildreth Decl. ¶ 10; Morgan Decl. ¶ 7.) Attached 

as Exhibit B to Morgan‟s declaration are copies of Plaintiff‟s grievance no. PVSP-S-10-00452 

and responses to the grievance. Exhibit B establishes that the issue in that appeal was Plaintiff‟s 

request that his orthotic boots, leg brace and prescription glasses be forwarded to him at PVSP 

from SATF. 

 

3 The third level is sometimes known as the Director‟s level.

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 5 of 9
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

SATF handled the property component as Appeal Log No.SATF-O-10-1661. (Hildreth 

Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. A at 4.) PVSP handled the ADA component as Appeal Log No. PVSP-S-10-

00452. The appeal was granted on April 27, 2010, and PVSP agreed to replace Plaintiff‟s ADA 

appliances. Plaintiff sought second level review of that appeal but it was screened out for 

exceeding time limits prescribed under Title 15. (Hildreth Decl. ¶ 11.) There is no record of 

either appeal being reviewed at the second or third level of review. (Briggs. Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8-11, 

Ex.A; Hildreth Decl. ¶¶ 6-9, Ex. A; Morgan Decl. ¶¶ 6-9, Ex. A.) 

The OOA, which processes appeals at the third and final level of formal review, received 

two appeals from Plaintiff between February 2, 2010 and March 28, 2011. (Briggs, Decl. ¶¶ 

2,4.) Those appeals, both of which addressed property issues, were procedurally screened out 

and not accepted because they had not been reviewed at the second level and lacked supporting 

documentation. (Briggs Decl. ¶¶ 6-10, Ex. A at p. 3 (numbered as 057.)) Exhibit A is a copy of 

the Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking System (IATS) printout for appeals history for Plaintiff 

between February 2, 2010 and March 28, 2011. 

The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden on summary judgment. 

Defendants have submitted evidence that establishes the lack of existence of a triable issue of 

fact. Defendants have submitted evidence that establishes that Plaintiff did not file a grievance 

regarding the conduct at issue in this lawsuit, and the grievances Plaintiff did file were not 

related to any of the conduct charged to the Defendants in this case. The burden shifts to 

Plaintiff to come forward with evidence that establishes a triable issue of fact as to whether he 

exhausted his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

C. Plaintiff’s Opposition

The Court will consider the opposition filed in response to the motion to dismiss for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies (ECF No. 43) and the opposition filed in response the 

motion for summary judgment that is currently before the Court (ECF No. 77). The opposition 

to the motion to dismiss includes Plaintiff‟s arguments. The opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment consists of Plaintiff‟s exhibits in support of his opposition. 

In a declaration attached to his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff refers to a 

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 6 of 9
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 regarding assault by staff on February 9, 2010. Plaintiff declares that on February 9, 

2010, he filed a grievance regarding the assault and on February 16, 2010, filed a grievance 

regarding his missing property. (Espritt Decl. ¶3.) Plaintiff also filed an appeal regarding 

medical property on March 25, 2010. (Id.) Regarding the property appeals, Plaintiff declares that 

one was granted at the informal level and another was granted in full at the first level of review. 

(Espritt Decl. ¶ 4.) Regarding his appeal about staff assault, Plaintiff declares that he never 

received a response to the appeal. Plaintiff declares that “over the last 15 years,” he has had 

numerous appeals end up lost or misplaced after delivering them to prison officials. (Espritt 

Decl. ¶¶ 4,8.) Plaintiff does not specifically describe the appeal. In the opposition to the motion 

to dismiss, Plaintiff refers to a “CDCR 602 appeal and attached staff complaint detailing 

assault.” (ECF No. 43 at3:10-11.) Plaintiff did, however, file a Government Claims Form with 

the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. The issue in that claim was 

the assault by Defendants, and the claim form lists Defendants by name. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff‟s exhibits in support of his opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 77.) The bulk of the exhibits refer to unrelated inmate grievances 

and grievances filed after the incident at issue. Page 17 of Exhibit C-1 is a copy of the 

Crime/Incident report, CDCR Form 837-A, describing the events at issue in this lawsuit. 

Plaintiff also submits the declaration of inmate John Madrid, who declares that “on two 

occasions, I saw and heard prisoner Espritt submit 2 602 appeals to staff members C/O Hinojosa 

(3rd watch) on February 9, 2010, and C/O Sanchez (3rd watch) on May 20, 2010, here at 

Pleasant Valley State Prison. (Madrid Decl. ¶ 4.) Inmate Monterubio similarly declares that “2 

times I witnessed prisoner Espritt H83832, submit 602 appeals and staff complaints to employees 

C/O Hinojosa (3/w) and C/O Sanchez (3/w) on May 20, 2010 here at P.V.S.P.) (Monterubio 

Decl. ¶ 4.) The Court notes that the second amended complaint alleges that the conduct 

occurred at SATF. (Am. Comp., ECF No. 17, p. 5.) 

In Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit held that a 

plaintiff “must establish (1) that he actually submitted a grievance or grievances that, if pursued 

through all levels of administrative appeals, would have sufficed to exhaust the claim that he 

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 7 of 9
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

seeks to pursue in federal court, and (2) that prison officials screened his grievance or grievances 

for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by application regulations.” Id. at 824. Although 

Plaintiff has declared that he submitted a 602, he fails to submit evidence that establishes 

personal knowledge about the content of the appeal, he fails to refer to any information about the 

content of the appeals and he fails to produce any copies of the appeals. Plaintiff‟s declaration 

establishes, at most, that he filed a grievance on February 9, 2010. Plaintiff has not come 

forward with any evidence that the grievance he filed was pursued beyond the informal level. 

Plaintiff‟s declaration does not establish evidence that Defendants were put on notice of the 

specific conduct charged in the second amended complaint. 

Further, “when the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent 

must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . 

Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the 

nonmoving party, there is no „genuine issue for trial.‟” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). The opposing evidence must be sufficiently 

probative to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find in favor of the opposing party. Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). The test is whether the opposing party “has 

come forward with sufficiently „specific‟ facts from which to draw reasonable inferences about 

other material facts that are necessary elements of the opposing party‟s claim.” Triton Energy 

Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). This obligation cannot be satisfied 

by “conclusory allegations, empty rhetoric, unsupported speculation, or evidence which, in the 

aggregate, is less than significantly probative.” Rogan v. City of Boston, 267 F.3d 24, 27 (1st 

Cir. 2001). Plaintiff‟s testimony that he submitted a 602 grievance, with nothing more, fails to 

meet Plaintiff‟s burden on summary judgment. 

IV.

CONCLUSION

Defendants have met their burden on summary judgment by coming forward with 

evidence that establishes the lack of existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff 

exhausted his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Defendants‟ evidence 

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 8 of 9
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

establishes that Plaintiff did not file a grievance regarding the conduct at issue in this lawsuit and 

did not pursue a grievance through the final, Director‟s level of review. Plaintiff testifies that he 

filed a 602 grievance, but fails to come forward with any evidence establishing the particular 

facts of the grievance, or any evidence that he pursued such a grievance through the Director‟s 

level of review. Judgment should therefore be entered in favor of Defendants and against 

Plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant‟s motion for summary 

judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies 

prior to filing suit be granted. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1). Within thirty (30) 

days after being served with these Finding and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 

Recommendations.” 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.2d F.3d 834, 

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 92 Filed 09/03/15 Page 9 of 9