Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253-13/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

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 Steven Leon Joyce is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ exhaustion motion for summary judgment, filed 

December 17, 2021.

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding Defendants Lozano, Garcia, Dodson, Valdez, Felix, A. Flores, 

Chanelo, and Tapia for retaliation, and separate excessive force claims against Defendants J. Florez 

and Tapia. 

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on July 1, 2021. 

The Court issued the discovery and scheduling order on September 17, 2021. 

///

STEVEN LEON JOYCE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 46)

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 20
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

As previously stated, on December 17, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment 

on the ground of failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.1 Plaintiff filed an opposition on 

February 22, 2022,2and Defendants filed a reply on March 4, 2022. 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Statutory Exhaustion Requirement

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995, requires that prisoners exhaust “such 

administrative remedies as are available” before commencing a suit challenging prison conditions.” 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638 (2016) (“An inmate, that is, must exhaust 

available remedies, but need not exhaust unavailable ones.”). Exhaustion is mandatory unless 

unavailable. “The obligation to exhaust ‘available’ remedies persists as long as some remedy remains 

‘available.’ Once that is no longer the case, then there are no ‘remedies ... available,’ and the prisoner 

need not further pursue the grievance.” Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis 

in original) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). 

This statutory exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, Porter v. 

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (quotation marks omitted), regardless of the relief sought by the 

prisoner or the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. at 741, and unexhausted claims 

may not be brought to court, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007) (citing Porter, 534 U.S. at 524). 

The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear the burden of raising 

and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166

(9th Cir. 2014). “In the rare event that a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a 

defendant may move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Otherwise, the 

defendants must produce evidence proving the failure to exhaust, and they are entitled to summary 

judgment under Rule 56 only if the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

1 Defendants J. Florez and D. Tapia do not move for summary judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.

2 Contrary to Defendants’ contention, Plaintiff’s opposition is signed under penalty of perjury and will be considered in 

ruling on the instant motion. (See ECF No. 49 at 26, 38, 154.) 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 20
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

plaintiff, shows he failed to exhaust. Id. 

B. Summary Judgment Standard

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court 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) (quotation marks omitted); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166; 

Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 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 presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the 

opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) 

(quotation marks omitted). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the 

parties, although it is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified

Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 

1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

The defendants bear the burden of proof in moving for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, 

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

that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy,” id. at 1172. If the defendants carry their burden, 

the burden of production shifts to the 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.” Id. “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.” 

Id. 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.

In arriving at this Findings and Recommendation, the court 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. Omission of reference to an argument, 

document, paper, or objection is not to be construed to the effect that this court did not consider the 

argument, document, paper, or objection. This court thoroughly reviewed and considered the evidence 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 3 of 20
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

it deemed admissible, material, and appropriate.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Description of CDCR’s Administrative Remedy Process

Plaintiff is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and CDCR has an administrative remedy process for inmate grievances. Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1 (2014). Compliance with section 1997e(a) is mandatory and state prisoners 

are required to exhaust CDCR’s administrative remedy process prior to filing suit in federal court. 

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir. 2010). 

CDCR’s administrative grievance process for non-medical appeals consists of three levels of review: 

(1) first level formal written appeals; (2) second level appeal to the Warden or designees; and (3) third 

level appeal to the Office of Appeals (OOA). Inmates are required to submit appeals on a standardized 

form (CDCR Form 602), attach necessary supporting documentation, and submit the appeal within thirty 

days of the disputed event. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.2, 3084.3(a), 3084.8(b). The California 

Code of Regulations also requires the following:

The inmate or parolee shall list all staff member(s) involved and shall describe their 

involvement in the issue. To assist in the identification of staff members, the inmate or parolee 

shall include the staff member’s last name, first initial, title or position, if known, and the dates 

of the staff member’s involvement in the issue under appeal. If the inmate or parolee does not 

have the requested identifying information about the staff member(s), he or she shall provide 

any other available information that would assist the appeals coordinator in making a 

reasonable attempt to identify the staff member(s) in question.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a)(3).3 

///

///

///

3 Effective June 1, 2020, the new rules are set out in Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3480–3486. For purposes of these 

Findings and Recommendations, all citations refer to the 2018-2019 version of the regulations which were effective at the 

time relevant to Plaintiff's claims.

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 4 of 20
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

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations4

From 2018 to 2019, Plaintiff resided at North Kern State Prison where the alleged incidents 

took place. Plaintiff contends that Defendants, a group of correctional officers assigned to Facility A, 

engaged in a pattern of retaliatory activities. More specifically, in March 2018, Plaintiff encountered 

Defendants A. Flores, Garcia, and Dodson outside of Facility A’s chow hall. Plaintiff observed the 

officers inciting another inmate, and Plaintiff asked the inmate if he was okay. In response, the 

officers instructed Plaintiff to “keep moving.” After Plaintiff left the chow hail, the officers smirked at 

him and Flores stated, “you can live here peacefully or you can live here with a target on your back.” 

Thereafter, Plaintiff became the subject of retaliatory incidents. On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff 

was involved in an incident on Facility A-yard after which Defendants Dodson and Garcia escorted 

him to a holding cage. While he was in the holding cage, Dodson and Garcia searched Plaintiff’s cell 

and trashed his personal property. 

In August 2018, officer Lozano strip-searched Plaintiff and a group of inmates. Officer 

Lozano threatened all the inmates that he stripped searched not to complain about the search. Plaintiff 

was a part of a group all which challenged the legality of the strip search. 

In October 2018, officer Lozano searched Plaintiff’s cell on two separate days in retaliation for 

Plaintiff’s involvement in the group appeal. 

On May 29, 2019, officer Valdez retaliated against Plaintiff by issuing two false rules-violation 

reports on the same day. Plaintiff informed officer Baez that he had safety concerns and needed to be 

transferred off Facility A. Officers later transported Plaintiff to a holding cage, where officers Felix 

and Florez told him “special orders from Captain Chanelo. You’re going back to five block.” 

Plaintiff understood this to mean it was out of retaliation by Captain Chanelo. Officer J. Florez 

directed Plaintiff to submit to handcuffs, and when Plaintiff provided his hands officer Florez 

squeezed his hands, causing the bones to pop. 

///

4 The Court only summarizes the factual allegations as relevant to the Defendants who are moving for summary judgment 

for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 5 of 20
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

C. Statement of Undisputed Facts5,6

1. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff alleges that officers Chanelo, Lozano, Valdez, A. Florez, Dodson, 

Garcia, and Felix retaliated against him from 2018 to 2019. (Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 1.) 

2. CDCR has an inmate appeals process, and in accordance with California Code of 

Regulations, title 15, § 3084.1, inmates can appeal for review of any departmental policy, decision, 

action, or condition that has a material or adverse effect on their welfare. (Declaration of Magallanes 

(Magallanes Decl.) ¶ 3.) 

3. The inmate appeals process in place at the time of Plaintiff’s allegations required 

inmates to exhaust three levels of review before a grievance was considered exhausted. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) 

4. All lower levels of review were subject to modification at the third level of review. (Id.

¶ 3.) 

5. Title 15, § 3084.2(a) required inmates to use the CDCR Form 602 to describe the 

specific issues under appeal and the relief requested. Section 3084.2(b)(3) and (4) required inmates to 

state all known facts regarding the issue being appealed and to list all staff members involved and 

describe their involvement in the issue being appealed. (Id.) 

6. Administrative remedies were not considered exhausted relative to any new issues, 

information, or person later named by the inmate that was not included in the originally submitted 

CDCR Form 602 and exhausted through all required levels of review. (Id.) 

7. Grievances were rejected for any reasons outlined in California Code of Regulations, 

title 15, § 3084.6(b). (Id. ¶ 5.) 

8. If CDCR staff rejected an appeal for any reason listed in § 3084.6(b), the Appeals 

Coordinator had to provide clear and sufficient instructions to the inmate telling them what they must 

do to qualify the appeal for processing. (Id.) 

5 Hereinafter referred to as “UF.” 

6

Plaintiff seeks to add additional information or simply disagree with several of the undisputed facts presented by 

Defendants which is improper and does not establish the fact is undisputed. 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 6 of 20
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

9. A grievance that was rejected in accordance with § 3084.6(b) could later be accepted if 

the inmate corrects the reason for rejection and resubmits the grievance within thirty calendar days of 

the rejection. (Id.) 

10. Grievances could be rejected because the appeal makes a general allegation, but fails to 

state facts or specify an act or decision consistent with the allegations. (Id.) 

11. Grievances could also be rejected if it is missing necessary supporting documentation. 

(Id.) 

12. Grievances could also be rejected if it involved multiple issues that do not derive from 

a single event or are not directly related and cannot be addressed in a single response due to this fact. 

(Id.) 

13. Grievances could be rejected if the appeal issue or complaint emphasis has been 

changed at some point in the process to the extent that the issue is entirely new and the required lower 

levels of review and assessment have thereby been circumvented. (Id.)

14. Grievances could be cancelled, and under § 3084.1(b) a cancelled appeal does not 

exhaust administrative remedies. (Id. ¶ 6.)

15. All grievances logged and processed by North Kern State Prison’s Inmate Appeals 

Office are recorded on the Inmate Appeals Tracking System (IATS). (Id. at ¶ 7.) 

16. On May 31, 2018, North Kern’s Inmate Appeals Office received a grievance logged 

and processed NKSP-A-18-2054. (Id. ¶ 7(b).)

17. In NKSP-A-18-2054, Plaintiff alleged officer Garcia, Flores, Dodson, and other 

unidentified officers acted unprofessionally when they escorted him to a holding cage after an incident 

occurred on May 29, 2018. (Id.) 

18. Plaintiff alleged that officer A. Flores tried to have him sign a falsified CDCR Form 

128-B counseling only chrono. (Id.) 

19. Plaintiff’s grievance requested a full investigation, no further retaliation, a copy of the 

cell search receipt, and for the search and escort officers to be trained, and for his federal court case 

documents to be returned to him. (Id.)

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 7 of 20
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

20. On June 30, 2018, the institution informed Plaintiff that its investigators found no 

evidence of staff misconduct. The institution also informed him that he needed to submit his 

grievance to the third level of administrative review for his grievance to be considered exhausted. The 

institution also informed him that he needed to submit his grievance to the third level of administrative 

review for his grievance to be considered exhausted. The institution also informed Plaintiff that 

allegations of staff misconduct “do not limit or restrict the availability of further relief via the inmate 

appeals process.” (Id.) 

21. At the third level the Secretary could have modified the second level’s determination 

that no staff misconduct occurred. (Id.) 

22. There is no record of Plaintiff submitting NKSP-18-2054 to the third level of review. 

(Id.)

23. On June 19, 2018, the Inmate Appeal Office processed grievance log number NKSP-A18-02389. (Id. ¶ 7(c).)

24. In NDSP-A-18-02389, Plaintiff alleged that officer Garcia searched his cell and 

destroyed his personal property. (Id.)

25. On June 29, 2018, the Inmate Appeals Office processed grievance log number NKSPA-18-02588. (Id. ¶ 7(d).)

26. In NKSP-A-18-02588, Plaintiff alleged that officer Valencia falsified a May 29, 2018 

rules-violation report for fighting. (Id.)

27. Plaintiff also alleged that there was a core group of officers “retaliating against inmate 

to prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights. (Id.)

28. Plaintiff included officers Dodson and Garcia in that group of officers who retaliate 

against inmates. (Id.)

29. The Hiring Authority sent Plaintiff a letter about NKSP-A-18-02588 that instructed him 

to “please document how and when you were retaliated against by these officers.” (Id.)

30. Plaintiff responded “Dodson and Garcia searched my cell and destroyed my personal 

property on May 29, 2018 in retaliation for me being involved in the alleged incident on May 29, 

2018. (Id.) 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 8 of 20
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

31. The second level of review included an interview with Plaintiff, and for the first time in 

the process, Plaintiff alleged that he witnesses officer Dodson attempt to incite an African American 

inmate, and when Plaintiff intervened, Dodson ordered Plaintiff to keep walking. (Id.)

32. On July 9, 2018, the Inmate Appeals Office received another grievance that was logged 

and processed under number NKSP-A-18-2649; however, this grievance was cancelled because it was 

beyond the 30-day time limit for grievances and it duplicated issues previously raised in NKSP-A-18-

02588 and NKSP-A-02389. (Id. ¶ 7(e).)

33. On May 23, 2019, the Inmate Appeals Office logged and processed grievance number 

NKSP-19-01927. (Id. ¶ 7(k).)

34. Plaintiff also took part in a group appeal alleging that officer Lozano conducted a strip 

search on August 1, 2018. That appeal was logged and processed as NKSP-A-18-3103. (Id. ¶ 7(p).) 

35. There is no record of NKSP-A-18-3103 being exhausted at the second or third levels of 

review. (Id.) 

36. There is also no record of Plaintiff alleging that officer Lozano thrashed his cell in 

retaliation for his participation in NKSP-A-18-3103. (Id.) 

37. Plaintiff submitted NKSP-X-19-3401, which challenged the rejection of his grievance 

against officer Valdez. (Id. ¶ 7(q).)

38. Plaintiff’s grievance against officer Valdez was rejected because Plaintiff combined 

multiple rules-violation reports in one grievance. (Id.)

39. The Appeals Coordinator determined that the two rules violation reports Plaintiff 

alleged in his grievance against officer Valdez were not directed related, and on September 12, 2019, 

the Appeals Coordinator sent him a letter about the rejection and instructed him to resubmit two 

separate appeals about each rules-violation report. (Id.)

40. NKSP-A-18-02389 was logged and processed by the Office of Appeals (OOA) as third 

level review (TLR) 18180891 on July 31, 2018. (Moseley Decl. ¶ 8(a).)

41. OOA processed TLR 18110905 on July 31, 2018, which was an appeal of NKSP-A-18-

02588. (Id. ¶ 8(b).)

42. OOA processed TLR Log No. 1908884 on July 25, 2019. (Id. ¶ 8(g).)

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 9 of 20
10

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

43. TLR Log No. 190884 was an appeal of NKSP-19-1927. (Id.)

44. In TLR Log No. 1908884, Plaintiff appealed a grievance about officer J. Florez’s 

alleged use of excessive force. (Id.)

45. OOA processed TLR Log No. 2004913 on April 20, 2020, and that appeal was an 

appeal of NKSP-X-19-04972. (Moseley Decl. ¶ 8(j).) 

46. The TLR Log No. 2004913 sought to reinstate a rejected grievance that alleged how 

officer Valdez falsified two separate RVRs from May 19, 2019. (Id.) 

47. It was determined that the grievance combined multiple issues in violation of Title 15, 

§ 3084.6(b)(8), which prohibits a single appeal grieving multiple issues. (Moseley Decl. ¶ 8(j).)

48. Despite receiving instructions about how to re-submit his grievances, Plaintiff did not 

re-submit the grievance as separate grievances. (Moseley Decl. ¶ 8(j).)

49. There is no third level review addressing Plaintiff’s grievance against officer Valdez. 

(Id.)

50. Plaintiff identified NKSP-A-18-2389 as the grievance that exhausted his claim that 

Defendant Garcia retaliated against him by searching his cell and destroying his property. (Pl.’s Resp 

to Def. Garcia’s First Set of Interrogs. Nos. 1-2.)

51. Plaintiff identified NKSP-A-2389 and NKSP-A-2588 as the grievances that exhausted 

his claim that Defendant Dodson retaliated against him by searching cell and destroying his property. 

(Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Dodgson’s First Set of Interrogs. Nos. 7-8.)

52. Plaintiff identified NKSP-A-18-2054 and NKSP-18-3029 as the grievances that 

exhausted his claim against Lt. A. Flores. (Pl.’s Resp. to Def. A Flores’s First Set of Interrogs. Nos. 1-

2.) 

53. NKSP-18-3029 only challenges the cancellation of a duplicative grievance; it does not 

address the merits of any allegation. (Moseley Decl. ¶ 8(c).)

54. Plaintiff identified NKSP-X-19-04972 and NKSP-X-19-3401 as the grievances that 

exhausted his claims against officer Valdez. (Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Valdez’s First Set of Interrogs. Nos. 

1-2.) 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 10 of 20
11

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

55. Plaintiff identified NKSP-19-01927 as the grievance that exhausted his claims against 

Defendant Felix. (Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Felix’s First Set of Interrogs. Nos. 1-2.)

56. Plaintiff identified NKSP-19-01927 and NKSP-19-02020 as the grievances that 

exhausted his claims against Defendant Chanelo. (Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Chanelo’s First Set of Interrogs. 

Nos. 1-2.)

57. NKSP-19-02020 was cancelled because it was determined that it duplicated issues 

under review in 19-01927. (Magallanes Decl. ¶ 7(m), Ex. 15.)

58. Plaintiff claims that officer Lozano threatened to destroy inmates’ cells if they appealed 

allegations that he strip searched them. (Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Lozano’s First Set of Interrogs. No. 3.) 

D. Analysis of Defendants’ Motion

Defendants argue that NKSP had a readily available process for filing administrative 

grievances, and the undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies for his retaliation claims against Defendants Chanelo, Lozano, Dodson, Garcia. A. Flores, 

and Valdez. 

It is undisputed that Plaintiff filed several inmate grievances during the relevant time frame. 

The Court will address each of the relevant grievances in relation to his retaliation claims below. 

1. Retaliation Claim Against Defendants Dodson and Garcia

a. NKSP-A-18-2389

It is undisputed that Plaintiff identified NKSP-A-18-2389 as the grievance that exhausted his 

claim that Defendant Garcia retaliated against him by searching his cell and destroying his property. 

(UF 50.) It is also undisputed that Plaintiff identified NKSP-A-2389 and NKSP-A-2588 as the 

grievances that exhausted his claim that Defendant Dodson retaliated against him by searching cell 

and destroying his property. (UF 51.) 

In NKSP-A-18-2389, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant officer E. Garcia searched his cell and 

destroyed some of his personal property. (Magallanes Decl., Ex. 5.) Indeed, Plaintiff requested that 

the he be provide replacement items which were destroyed by Garcia. (Id.) There is no allegations 

that Defendant Garcia searched his cell and destroyed his personal property in retaliation for Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 11 of 20
12

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

protected conduct. Further, the grievance makes no mention of Defendant Dodson’s alleged 

involvement in the cell search. (Id.) 

In addition, NKSP-A-18-2389, did not provide sufficient facts from which a prison official 

would understand that Plaintiff engaged in some for of protected conduct before Defendants Dodson 

and Garcia searched his cell and destroyed his property, that Defendants Dodson and Garcia were 

aware Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct; or that Defendants Dodson and Garcia searched his cell 

and destroyed his property in retaliation for that protected conduct. Accordingly, NKSP-A-18-2389 

does not exhaust Plaintiff’s claims against any of the Defendants. 

In his opposition, Plaintiff contends in the action requested portion of this appeal, he requested 

that “no further retaliation be taken.” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 20, ECF No. 49.) However, this vague request 

does not put prison officials on notice that Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct before officers 

Garcia and Dodson searched his cell, that officers Garcia and Dodson knew about Plaintiff’s protected 

conduct, and intended to chill his freedom of speech rights. Rather, the nature of Plaintiff’s grievance 

involved the destruction of property, not misconduct taken in retaliation for the exercise of Plaintiff’s 

rights under the First Amendment. Plaintiff’s vague request that no further retaliation take place does 

not create a material dispute of fact that Plaintiff placed prison officials on notice of his retaliation 

claims against officers Dodson and Garcia. 

b. NKSP-A-18-2588

Defendants argue that NKSP-A-18-2588 and the third level review failed to exhaust the 

administrative remedies for the retaliation claims against Defendants Dodson and Garcia. In NKSPA-18-2588, Plaintiff alleged that on May 29, 2018, a rules violation report was falsified in retaliation 

by officer non-party Valencia. (Magallanes Decl. Ex. 6.) Plaintiff also asserted “it[’]s a core of 

officers who retaliate ... to prevent inmates from exercising their 1st Amendment rights to grieve as 

well as the right to grieve as protected by C.C.R. § 3084.1(d). The core of officers who have been

known to retaliate is C/O U. Valencia, E. Dodson, G. Correa, C. Valencia, E. Garcia.” This appeal 

was bypassed at the first level of review, and at the second level review an interview into Plaintiff’s 

allegations was conducted by correctional counselor B. Johnson. 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 12 of 20
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

The Court finds that this grievance is sufficient to grieve the retaliation claim against 

Defendants Dodson and Garcia as the prison officials were clearly aware of the alleged misconduct as 

provided by Plaintiff during the interview and the appeal was not rejected as procedurally deficient for 

failure to provide sufficient factual information. (Magallanes Decl. Ex. 6; Moseley Decl. Ex. 3.) 

Indeed, during the interview, Plaintiff was specifically asked if he had any additional statements to add 

to his appeal and he reiterated that he wis retaliated by staff identified in section A of the appeal. 

Although the third level review noted that Plaintiff added new issues and requests to the appeal, the 

Court cannot determine what new issue or requests were added at the third level of review, and the 

fact that Plaintiff grieved allegations of retaliation against Defendants Dodson and Garcia was 

specifically mentioned in the original appeal at the first level of review. Accordingly, this appeal is 

sufficient to grieve the retaliation claims against Defendants Dodson and Garcia. By explaining the 

alleged retaliatory conduct by Defendants officer Dodson and Garcia during the second level 

interview, as requested by correctional counselor B. Johnson, the appeal sufficed to place the prison on 

notice of the retaliation claims against these Defendants. 

2. Retaliation Claim Against Defendant A. Flores

Plaintiff identified NKSP-A-18-2054 and NKSP-18-3029 as the grievances that exhausted his 

claim against lieutenant A. Flores. (UF 52.) 

In NKSP-A-18-2054, Plaintiff alleged that on May 29, 2018, officer E. Garcia became volatile 

toward him after he refused to sign a CDCR 128-B chrono. It was alleged that officer Garcia snatched 

the CDCR 128-B from Plaintiff’s hands as he attempted to reach the chrono and then made the 

following statement: “I’m putting your black ass back in the cage.” Lieutenant Flores then approached 

Plaintiff and threatened to place him in administrative segregation for safety concerns if Plaintiff did 

not sign the chrono. (Magallanes Decl. Ex. 4.) There is no allegation in this appeal that lieutenant 

Flores retaliated against Plaintiff. Although the appeal was “partially granted” inasmuch as an appeal 

inquiry was conducted, but it was determined (contrary to Plaintiff’s contention) that staff did not 

violate CDCR policy with respect to the issues raised. (Id.) In addition, despite the fact that Plaintiff 

did not receive all the relief requested and advisement that the appeal was not exhausted until a 

decision by the third level review was rendered, Plaintiff did not appeal to the third level of review. 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 13 of 20
14

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

(UF 22.) Indeed, the third level review could have issued a modification order. (Magallanes Decl. ¶ 

7(b).) Accordingly, this appeal did not grieve the retaliation claim against A. Flores. 

In NKSP-18-3209 (Appeal Log No. 1813445), Plaintiff only challenges the cancellation of a 

duplicative grievance; it does not address the merits of any allegation. (UF 53.) Plaintiff alleged that 

NKSP-18-02649 was not duplicative to NKSP-18-02054 and NKSP-18-2389, and the grievance was 

improperly cancelled. In NKSP-18-02649, Plaintiff claimed that on May 29, 2018, he was falsely 

accused of fighting and was missing personal property items based on his assigned cell being 

searched. (Moseley Decl. Ex. 4.) The third level of review denied the appeal, stating, in pertinent part 

as follows:

A review of Inmate Appeals Tracking System (IATS) noted the Appeals Office received 

appeal Log# NKSP-18-02649 on July 13, 2018, and the appeal was cancelled as being a 

duplicate. The SLR noted the appellant submitted appeal Log# NKSP-18-02054 which was 

categorized as a Staff Complaint. Within the appeal, the appellant noted the circumstances 

which led to him receiving a CDC Form 115, Rules Violation Report (RVR) dated May 29,2 

018 for Fighting. This appeal was completed and returned to the appellant on July 11, 2018, 

with a SLR Staff Complaint response. The IATS noted on June 19, 2018, the appellant 

submitted appeal Log# NKSP-18-02389 where he noted he was missing personal property 

items based on his assigned cell being search[ed] on May 29, 2018. This appeal was 

completed and returned to the appellant on July 10, 2018, at the First Level of Review (FLR). 

On July 13, 2018, the Appeals Office received appeal Log# NKSP-18-02389 where the 

appellant stated he was dissatisfied with the FLR. The SLR was completed and returned to the 

appellant on July 18, 2018, with a Second Level response. The SLR noted the appellant 

submitted appeal Log#-18-02588 on July 18, 2018, where he noted his RVR dated May 29, 

2019, was falsified in retaliation. An SLR response was conducted and the appeal was 

returned to the appellant on July 25, 2018. The SLR noted that appeal Log# NKSP-18-02649 

was retarding issue related to the allegations of his May 29, 2018, RVR being falsified. The 

appellant also noted his assigned cell being searched and staff leaving his assigned cell in 

disarray on May 29, 2018. The SLR noted the appellant brought forth several issues related to 

the incidents that occurred on May 29, 2018, in the above mentioned appeals. Specifically, 

appeal Log# NKSP-18-02389 addressed the appellant’s property concerns and appeal Log# 

NKSP-18-02588 addressed his claims of being retaliated against by Correctional Officer (CO) 

Garcia and CO Dodson, along with several other staff. Therefore, the cancellation of appeal 

Log# NKSP-18-02649 was appropriate as it was duplicate to several other appeals filed. 

(Moseley Decl. Ex. 4.) 

Based on the determination issued by the third level of review, this appeal was properly 

cancelled pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3084.6(c). Thus, it is 

undisputed that this grievance did not grieve the retaliation claim against Defendant A. Flores. 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 14 of 20
15

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

In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that “A. Flores threatened the plaintiff that he would have 

a ‘target’ on his ‘back’ for exercising his grieving rights and reporting any misconduct against his 

administration staff.” (Pl. Opp’n at 5 ¶¶ 4-6, ECF No. 49.) However, in his verified complaint, 

Plaintiff only alleged that “L.T. Flores also told the Plaintiff ‘you can live here peacefully or have a 

‘target’ on your back” and then immediately filed a grievance about lieutenant Flores conduct. 

(Compl. at 10 ¶¶ 3-7, ECF No. 1.) Notwithstanding the inconsistency, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 

allegations that he feared retaliation are insufficient to excuse any exhaustion. “[T]he threat 

of retaliation for reporting an incident can render the prison grievance process effectively unavailable 

and thereby excuse a prisoner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” McBride v. Lopez, 807

F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir. 2015). For this exception to apply, a plaintiff must establish both (1) that he 

subjectively “believed prison officials would retaliate against him if he filed a grievance” and (2) that 

this fear was objectively reasonable. Rodriguez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 792 (9th Cir.

2018). 

The alleged threat by A. Flores fails to meet the McBride standard. Irrespective of the exact 

content of A. Flores statement, it is clear that the alleged threat by A. Flores did not actually deter 

Plaintiff from filing a grievance. In his verified complaint, Plaintiff states, under penalty of perjury, 

that following the statement made by A. Flores Plaintiff filed a grievance to document the incident. 

(Compl. at 10.) In addition, Plaintiff filed several other grievances during the relevant time frame 

alleging staff misconduct which further demonstrates that Plaintiff’s belief was not objectively 

reasonable. See, e.g., Gaines v. Beasley, No. 1:15-cv-1533-LJO-JLT, 2018 WL 5270539, at *7 (E.D. 

Cal. Oct. 22, 2018) (the fact that plaintiff filed several appeals during the relevant period alleging staff 

misconduct demonstrated the objective standard was not met); see also Williams v. Ortega, No. 18-cv054-MDD-LAB, 2021 WL 4473171, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2021) (concluding fact that inmateplaintiff filed 18 administrative grievances during relevant time frame did not satisfy McBride’s 

objective prong). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s verified complaint makes clear that Plaintiff cannot meet 

the McBride standard. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a material dispute of fact based 

on the alleged threat by A. Flores. 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 15 of 20
16

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. Retaliation Claim Against Defendant Valdez

Plaintiff identified NKSP-X-19-04972 and NKSP-X-19-3401 as the grievances that exhausted 

his claims against officer Valdez. (UF 54.) 

a. NKSP-X-19-3401

It is undisputed that Plaintiff submitted NKSP-X-19-3401, which challenged the rejection of 

his grievance against officer Valdez. (UF 37.) Plaintiff’s grievance against officer Valdez was 

rejected because Plaintiff combined multiple rules-violation reports in one grievance. (UF 38.) The 

Appeals Coordinator determined that the two rules violation reports Plaintiff alleged in his grievance 

against officer Valdez were not directed related, and on September 12, 2019, the Appeals Coordinator 

sent him a letter about the rejection and instructed him to resubmit two separate appeals about each 

rules-violation report. (UF 39.)

A decision to reject an inmate grievance can render administrative remedies unavailable only if 

Plaintiff can establish: “1) that he actually filed a grievance or grievance that, if pursued through all 

levels of administrative appeals, would have sufficed to exhaust the claim he seeks to pursue in federal 

court; and 2) prison official screening his grievance or grievances for reasons inconsistent with or 

unsupported by applicable regulations.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Neither instance applies here. The applicable regulations allow prison officials to reject a grievance 

which involves “multiple issues that do not derive from a single event, or are not directly related and 

cannot be reasonably addressed in a single response due to this fact.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 

3084.6(b)(8). If the grievance is rejected pursuant to § 3084.6(b), the appeals coordinator must 

provide clear and sufficient instructions regarding any further actions necessary to allow the appeal to 

proceed. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.6(a)(1). The appeal may later be accepted if the rejection is 

properly corrected, and the appeal is returned within the applicable deadline. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, 

§ 3084.6(a)(2). 

Here, the appeals coordinator determined that although the two rules-violations were issued on 

the same day, they dealt with separate conduct: one alleged that Plaintiff possessed a contraband cell 

phone; the second alleged that Plaintiff engaged in behavior that could lead to violence when Plaintiff 

swore at officer Valdez. (UF 39.) Indeed, each rules-violation involved different disciplinary 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 16 of 20
17

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

outcomes, as the violation for contraband was dismissed and Plaintiff was convicted of the violation 

for behavior that could lead to violence resulting in the loss of ten days’ credit. (Magallanes Decl. ¶ 

7(q), Exs. 19-20.) Consequently, the appeal was rejected because neither rules violation report was 

directly related. Furthermore, the rejection did not render Plaintiff’s remedies unavailable. Plaintiff 

was notified of the reason for the rejection and provided clear instructions on how to re-submit the 

appeal to allow for processing, consistent with § 3084.6(a)(2). (Id.) Plaintiff did not heed the 

instructions, but instead re-submitted the grievance without making the necessary corrections and 

requested to reinstate his grievance. (Id.) However, prison officials determined there was no basis to 

reinstate the grievance. (Id.) Accordingly, the screen out of Plaintiff’s grievance was consistent with 

the applicable regulations, and Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies against 

Defendant Valdez. 

Plaintiff’s disagreement with the prison’s determination that this appeal involved two separate 

incidents, does not generate a material dispute of fact. Indeed, Plaintiff has presented no admissible 

evidence that he could not have followed the specific instruction to separate the two issues into two 

grievances to resubmit both of them. (Magallanes Decl. Ex. 19.) 

b. NKSP-X-19-04972

It is undisputed that the OOA processed TLR Log No. 2004913 on April 20, 2020, and that 

appeal was an appeal of NKSP-X-19-04972. (UF 45.) The TLR Log No. 2004913 sought to reinstate 

a rejected grievance that alleged how officer Valdez falsified two separate RVRs from May 19, 2019. 

(UF 46.) It was determined that the grievance combined multiple issues in violation of Title 15, § 

3084.6(b)(8), which prohibits a single appeal grieving multiple issues. (UF 47.) Despite receiving 

instructions about how to re-submit his grievances, Plaintiff did not re-submit the grievance as 

separate grievances. (UF 48.) There is no third level review addressing Plaintiff’s grievance against 

officer Valdez. (UF 49.) Accordingly, this appeal did not serve to exhaust Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant Valdez. 

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 17 of 20
18

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. Retaliation Claim Against Defendants Chanelo and Felix

Plaintiff identified NKSP-19-01927 as the grievance that exhausted his claims against 

Defendant Felix. (UF 55.) Plaintiff also identified NKSP-19-01927 and NKSP-19-02020 as the 

grievances that exhausted his claims against Defendant Chanelo. (UF 56.) 

a. NKSP-19-01927

In NKSP-19-01927, Plaintiff alleged that on May 18, 2019, he made contact with officer Baez 

and told him he was feeling suicidal and his safety was in danger. Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs 

and escorted to the A yard. After waiting in the cage, sergeant Felix and officer J. Florez said special 

orders from Captain Chanelo “you[’re] going back to five block.” When Florez placed handcuffs on 

Plaintiff, he used unnecessary force by squeezing Plaintiff’s fingers together on his right hand and 

slammed his right hand against the steel cage slot. Plaintiff was pinned like a wrestler. In the request 

for relief, Plaintiff sought to have captain P. Chanelo removed of his duties as a captain for 

deliberately interring with the reporting of staff misconduct by ordering his return back to A yard. 

(Magallanes Decl. Ex. 13.) 

This grievance does not mention Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendants Chanelo and 

Felix; rather, the grievance involves allegations relating to the use of excessive force by officer J. 

Florez. (Id.) Indeed, the third level response support this finding because it only addressed Plaintiff’s 

use of force claim against officer J. Florez. (Moseley Decl. Ex. 8.) Although Plaintiff mentions 

Chanelo and Felix in this appeal, there are simply no facts to put the prison on notice that these 

officers engaged in retaliation for Plaintiff’s protected conduct. Accordingly, this grievance did not 

grieve Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendants Chanelo and Felix.

b. NKSP-19-02020

NKSP-19-02020 was cancelled because it was determined that it duplicated issues under 

review in 19-01927. (UF 57.) Indeed, it was determined that this appeal was a duplicate of NKSP-19-

01927, as it challenged the use of excessive force by officer J. Florez. (Id.) A cancellation decision 

under section 3084.6(c) does not exhaust administrative remedies. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 

3084.1(b). Accordingly, NSKP-19-02020 did not exhaust Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against 

Defendants Chanelo and Felix.

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 18 of 20
19

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. Retaliation Claim Against Defendant Lozano

Plaintiff claims that officer Lozano threatened to destroy inmates’ cells if they appealed 

allegations that he strip searched them. (UF 58.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff also took part in a 

group appeal alleging that officer Lozano conducted a strip search on August 1, 2018. That appeal 

was logged and processed as NKSP-A-18-3103. (UF 34.) There is no record of NKSP-A-18-3103 

being exhausted at the second or third levels of review. (UF 35.) There is also no record of Plaintiff 

alleging that officer Lozano thrashed his cell in retaliation for his participation in NKSP-A-18-3103. 

(UF 36.) Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies for his retaliation claim 

against Defendant Lozano. 

In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that during the strip search, officer Lozano threatened to 

retaliate against inmates for filing grievances. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 24, ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff argues that 

he suffered for over a year and custody staff, among other things, falsified state documents which 

resulted in him being assaulted on two separate occasions. (Id.) Plaintiff also contends he did not file 

a grievance against officer Lozano as it was filed by inmate Styles. (Id.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff 

was one of the inmate’s who participated in a group appeal (NKSP-A-18-3103) complaining about 

strip search conducted by Lozano on August 1, 2018. (UF 34.) In addition, it is also undisputed that 

Plaintiff continued to file several other grievances during the relevant time period. (Magallanes Decl. 

Exs. 2-20.). Plaintiff’s alleged belief that he felt threatened by officer Lozano is belied by the record 

in this case and it is simply not plausible. 

IV.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ exhaustion motion for summary judgment be denied as to the retaliation 

claims against Defendants Dodson and Garcia; and

2. Defendants’ exhaustion motion for summary judgment be granted as to the retaliation 

claims against Defendants Lozano, Valdez, Felix, A. Flores, and Chanelo.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 19 of 20
20

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

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

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

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.3d 834, 838-

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 52 Filed 07/26/22 Page 20 of 20