Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01007/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01007-6/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

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

Plaintiff Freddy Morales (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action on June 27, 2014. The action proceeds against Defendant Condoian1

(“Defendant”) for the use of excessive force and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment.2

On January 19, 2016, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment based on 

failure to exhaust. Alternatively, Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.3 Plaintiff 

did not oppose the motion. Therefore, on March 18, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an 

 

1

 Plaintiff incorrectly named Defendant as “Cordonia.” 

2 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.

3

 Defendant’s motion included the required notices. 

FREDDY MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CORDONIA, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14cv01007 DLB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Document 30)

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 7
2

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

opposition within thirty (30) days. The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he did not file an opposition, 

the motion would be decided without his input.

Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise 

contacted the Court.4 The motion is ready for decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

A. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that on November 14, 2012, Defendant was passing out lunch bags at 4:30 

a.m. Defendant opened Plaintiff’s tray slot. Plaintiff walked over, placed his right arm out and held 

the lock. Plaintiff asked if he could “ask to Sgt.” ECF No. 1, at 3. Defendant said no, and told 

Plaintiff to release the lock. Plaintiff told him that he wanted to talk to Mental Health and Defendant 

said, “Fuck, no.” ECF No. 1, at 4. Defendant then kicked Plaintiff’s right hand two to three times.

Plaintiff switched to his left hand. Defendant kicked Plaintiff’s palm and sprayed him with 

mace. Plaintiff asked to be decontaminated, and Defendant told him to use the toilet bowl water. 

Plaintiff told him that the water in his cell was off and the toilet bowl had urine in it. Defendant said, 

“oh well,” and walked away. ECF No. 1, at 4.

Plaintiff did not get to wash off the mace until the next day.

B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

The failure to exhaust is subject to a motion for summary judgment in which the court may 

look beyond the pleadings. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). If the Court 

concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Jones, 

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

Defendant bears the burden of proof in moving for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, 

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166, and he must “prove that there was an available administrative remedy, and 

that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy,” id. at 1172. If Defendant carries his burden, 

the burden of production shifts to Plaintiff “to come forward with evidence showing that there is 

 

4

 Plaintiff’s last contact with the Court was his August 20, 2015, notice of change of address. The motion for summary 

judgment and the Court’s March 18, 2016, order were served at Plaintiff’s current address.

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 7
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

something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies 

effectively unavailable to him.” Id. This requires Plaintiff to “show more than the mere existence of a 

scintilla of evidence.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986)). “If the 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. However, “[i]f material 

facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied, and the district judge rather than a jury should 

determine the facts.” Id.

C. APPEALS PROCESS

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) mandates that inmates exhaust all available 

administrative remedies before filing “any suit challenging prison conditions,” including, but not 

limited to, suits under § 1983. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 

(2006). An inmate is required to exhaust only available remedies. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 

736 (2001); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936–37 (9th Cir.2005). To be available, a remedy must 

be available “as a practical matter”; it must be “capable of use; at hand.” Id. at 937 (quoting Brown v. 

Croak, 312 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir.2002)).

Section 1073 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations provides county jail inmates 

with a right to “appeal and have resolved grievances” relating to their confinement. Pursuant to 

Section 1073, the Madera County Department of Corrections (“MCDOC”) Inmate Grievance policy 

involves four steps. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 6. Inmates are told that they should exhaust all 

administrative remedies prior to filing an action with the courts. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 6. 

The inmate is first required to verbally notify the officer of the grievance, and the officer will 

handle it immediately if an immediate resolution exists. If the inmate chooses to submit a written 

grievance, the inmate must complete the appeal form and submit it to the officer. Upon receipt of the 

appeal, the officer will attempt to settle the matter and give the inmate a written response, providing 

the inmate with a pink copy of the appeal form as a receipt. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 6. If the inmate 

rejects the decision, or the officer cannot make a decision at that level, the grievance is forwarded to 

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 7
4

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

jail services for recording and given a tracking number. The grievance is then considered by the 

appropriate supervisor. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 6. 

At the second step, the supervisor will attempt to remedy the issue and provide a written 

response. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 6. The inmate can accept the decision or appeal to the operations 

commander. If the supervisor cannot make a decision, the appeal is forwarded to the operations 

commander. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 6.

At the third step, the operations commander will respond to the grievance. The written 

response from the operations commander is the final decision of the MCDOC. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 

6. 

Finally, a decision may be modified at the “grievance appeal” level. If an inmate is not 

satisfied with the results, the inmate can file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, 

Ex. 6. 

D. UNDISPUTED FACTS5

There was an inmate grievance procedure in place at the Madera County Jail at the time of 

Plaintiff’s incarceration. Romero Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 6; Condoian Decl. ¶ 13. 

Plaintiff filed numerous grievances from November 22, 2013, through October 2013. Of these 

seven grievances, no grievance specifically relates to the events of November 14, 2015. Romero Decl. 

¶ 3, Ex. 7.1-7.7. Two of these grievances, however, reference a November 15, 2012, appeal that 

Plaintiff contends he filed about the incident. 

In Plaintiff’s September 15, 2013, grievance, he states that he was assaulted by Defendant on 

November 13, 2012,6and filed a grievance on November 15, 2012. He states that he never received a 

 

5

Plaintiff did not oppose this motion, and therefore did not admit or deny the facts set forth by Defendant as undisputed. 

Local Rule 56-260(b). Therefore, the Court was left to compile the summary of undisputed facts from Defendant’s 

statement of undisputed facts and Plaintiff’s verified complaint. A verified complaint in a pro se civil rights action may 

constitute an opposing affidavit for purposes of the summary judgment rule, where the complaint is based on an inmate’s 

personal knowledge of admissible evidence, and not merely on the inmate’s belief. McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 

197-98 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curium); Lew v. Kona Hospital, 754 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir. 1985); F.R.C.P. 56(e). 

6

 Plaintiff incorrectly states that the incident occurred on November 13, 2012, on both the September 15 and September 

25, 2013, grievances. According to Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant’s exhibits, the date of the incident was November 

14, 2012.

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 7
5

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

response and requests a copy of the grievance “for legal purposes.” On October 4, 2013, Defendant 

responded at the officer level, stating that he never received a grievance regarding this incident. At the 

supervisor level of review, a supervisor indicated, “I find no record of the grievance. Please resubmit 

if you feel it is necessary.” Romero Decl., Ex. 7.5; ECF No. 1, at 18.

On September 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed another grievance referencing the incident and a 

November 15, 2012, grievance. He states that he was assaulted by Defendant on November 13, 2012, 

and filed a grievance on November 15, 2012, but never received a response. Plaintiff further explains 

that he submitted a grievance on September 15, 2013, asking for copies of the grievance, but did not 

receive a response. Plaintiff asks for copies of both grievances for legal purposes. A signature 

indicates that the appeal was received on September 25, 2013, and the box “Unable to respond” is 

checked. There are no further responses on the appeal. Romero Decl., Ex. 7.6; ECF No. 1, at 15. 

In his complaint, Plaintiff states that he submitted an appeal, but that it was never answered. 

ECF No. 1, at 2. He states that he then asked for a copy of the grievance, but was told “they never 

received it.” ECF No. 1, at 2. 

Defendant does not recall Plaintiff telling him that he wanted to file a grievance about the 

incident, nor does he recall Plaintiff giving him a grievance form about the incident. Condoian Decl. ¶ 

13.

E. DISCUSSION

It is undisputed the MCDOC does not have a record of an appeal related to the incident at 

issue. Defendant has therefore carried his burden of showing that there was an available 

administrative remedy, and the burden now shifts to Plaintiff “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.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172.

In his September 2013 appeals, Plaintiff contends that he was assaulted by Defendant on 

November 13, 2012, and filed “a grievance” on November 15, 2012, but never received a response. In 

his verified complaint, Plaintiff repeats his assertion that he never received a response, and states that 

he was told that the appeal was never received.

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

The parties therefore dispute whether Plaintiff filed a grievance in the first instance. However, 

even if Plaintiff filed a grievance and did not receive a response, the PLRA requires “proper 

exhaustion” of administrative remedies, and a prisoner cannot satisfy the PLRA exhaustion 

requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective grievance. Woodford v. Ngo, 

548 U.S. 81, 90-93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 

1192 (9th Cir.2015). To meet this standard, prisoners must comply “with an agency’s deadlines and 

other critical procedural rules” as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court. Id. at 90. “[T]o 

properly exhaust administrative remedies prisoners ‘must complete the administrative review process 

in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,’ [ ]-rules that are defined not by the PLRA, but by 

the prison grievance process itself.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 

798 (2007) (quoting Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88).

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony clarifies his attempts at exhaustion, and shows that he did not 

properly exhaust his appeal. As explained above, the MCDOC procedure requires that an inmate first 

verbally notify an officer of the grievance. If the inmate decides to file a written grievance, he must 

give the grievance to the officer.

Plaintiff testified that he went to the podium and asked for a grievance form on the morning of 

the incident. Pl.’s Dep. 59:24-25, 61:14-15. Officer Rossette gave him one, which Plaintiff filled out 

and turned in. Pl.’s Dep. 59:24-60:3. Plaintiff thinks he gave the appeal to “one of the inmates,” 

though he is not completely sure. Pl.’s Dep. 63:19-21. He gave it to an inmate because he was on 

lockdown and could not come out of his cell. Pl.’s Dep. 64:7-8. When asked if he could have passed 

it through a slot to someone, Plaintiff said that he didn’t know, but that he “could have maybe.” Pl.’s 

Dep. 64:9-13. Plaintiff testified that he gave it to the inmate “to take to him. . . ,” and that since his 

cell was in front of the podium, he could “watch the inmate give it to him.” Pl.’s Dep. 64:11-13, 

65:17-18. Plaintiff could not remember if he watched the inmate. Pl.’s Dep. 65:20-21. Plaintiff did 

not follow up on the September 2013 grievances because he was transferred in October, and believed 

that the grievances were rendered moot. Pl.’s Dep. 79:13-80:18.

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/02/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, his own testimony 

shows that he failed to follow the proper procedure. Rather than verbally notify the officer of the 

appeal and then give the written grievance to the officer, Plaintiff obtained a grievance form and gave 

it to an inmate. Although he said he could watch the inmate give it to “him,” he could not remember if 

he watched.

The Court also notes that on October 4, 2013, in response to his September 15, 2013, Plaintiff 

was told to resubmit the November 15, 2012, grievance if he felt it was necessary. Plaintiff did not do 

so.

Plaintiff is therefore unable to satisfy the exhaustion requirement because he did not follow the 

MCDOC’s rules for submitting a grievance, and he has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that 

administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.7

F. ORDER

Based on the above, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. This action is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

7 As the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s claims are unexhausted, it will not reach Defendant’s qualified immunity 

argument.

Case 1:14-cv-01007-DLB Document 33 Filed 06/02/16 Page 7 of 7