Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01463/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01463-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUDREE CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. VERA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01463-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 24, 33)

Plaintiff Audree Chatman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This case now proceeds on 

plaintiff’s claim against defendant H. Vera for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Doc. No. 11.)

On October 28, 2019, defendant Vera filed a motion for summary judgment based on 

plaintiff’s purported failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as is 

required. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to defendant’s motion despite 

receiving an extension of time in which to do so from the court. (Doc. No. 31.)

On February 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied

Case 1:18-cv-01463-SAB Document 34 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

because defendant has failed to meet his initial burden to “prove that there was an available 

administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy.” (Doc. No. 33

at 3, 7) (citing Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014).) In particular, the magistrate 

judge found contradictions in defendant’s arguments and the documentation submitted to the 

court in support of the motion. (Id. at 6–7.) On the one hand, defendant argued that plaintiff’s 

inmate grievance regarding excessive use of force is still pending at the second level of review 

and attached as exhibits to his motion twelve memorandums of delay dated between March 2018 

and July 2019 stating that the due date for the second level review had been extended. (Id.) But,

on the other hand, defendant also attached a response dated February 22, 2018, stating that 

plaintiff’s appeal inquiry at the second level had been completed and that staff did not violate 

CDCR policy with respect to the issue plaintiff had presented in his inmate grievance.1 (Id.) In 

the pending findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge pointed out this discrepancy, 

stating:

It is unclear why the second level review issued memorandums of 

delay after a decision was rendered at that level. Defendant does not 

address this discrepancy and the Court finds that he has failed to meet 

his initial burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the 

administrative remedies. It is not clear what, if anything, Plaintiff 

was required to do given that the second level issued a decision on 

February 22, 2018—which Defendant fails to acknowledge or 

address.

(Id. at 7.) Defendant had an opportunity to address these concerns by filing objections to the 

pending findings and recommendations, but did not do so. The pending findings and 

recommendations were served on the parties and contained noticed that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within thirty (30) days. (Id. at 8.) No objections have been filed and the time for 

doing so has passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

 

1

 There is no evidence before the court showing that plaintiff ever received a copy of the 

response from the second level of review. In the “Second Level – Staff Use Only” section on 

plaintiff’s Form 602 for the grievance at issue, the space for “Date mailed/delivered to appellant” 

is left blank. (Doc. No. 24-3 at 41.)

Case 1:18-cv-01463-SAB Document 34 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 

proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 33) are 

adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies, with respect to the claims presented in this action, prior to 

filing suit as required (Doc. No. 24) is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01463-SAB Document 34 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 3