Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Borbon
Defendant
Finegan
Defendant
C. Lawless
Defendant
James Pablo Patterson
Plaintiff
S. Corona
Defendant
Warden and Housing Supervisor
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JAMES PABLO PATTERSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN AND HOUSING 

SUPERVISOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01948-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Docs. 43, 57)

Plaintiff, James Pablo Patterson, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on his claims in the Second Amended 

Complaint for deliberate indifference to his safety under the Eighth Amendment against 

Defendants Warden C. Lawless, Sergeant Finegan, and Correctional Officers S. Corona and R. 

Borbon ("Defendants"). (See Docs. 19, 21, 22.) The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 9, 2014, 

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff failed to administratively 

exhaust his claims against them as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PRLA"). (Doc. 

43.)

On November 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations to 

deny Defendants' motion. (Doc. 57.) This was served on both parties and contained notice that 

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (Id.) 

Defendants filed objections on December 8, 2014. (Doc. 58.) 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 59 Filed 01/05/15 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

In their objections, Defendants argue that it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not actually 

exhaust administrative remedies concerning the incident at issue in this action and that there is a 

disputed factual question that is not readily ascertainable and rests on a credibility determination 

such that an evidentiary hearing should be held. (Id.) 

However, as correctly stated in the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff submitted 

evidence to show that he filed the July 21, 2009 inmate appeal ("IA") regarding being attacked 

when wrongly assigned to a cell with a known gang enemy which was never responded to and 

that he did not know what to do when prison staff did not respond to an IA until September of 

2010. (Doc. 57, F&R, 7:6-8:2.) As also correctly cited in the Findings and Recommendations, "a 

remedy becomes unavailable if prison employees do not respond to a properly filed grievance . . . 

." Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted) 

cited with approval in Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Defendants submitted evidence which showed that, before 2011, IAs submitted at the 

informal level and those that were rejected were not given a log number or formally tracked; nor 

were copies of the appeals or rejection forms kept and that they were only able to access "some 

information concerning rejected appeals from [their] computer system." (Doc. 57, 8:25-9:5, citing 

Doc. 43-3, p. 3 (emphasis added in F&R).) Defendants also failed to submit any information to 

show that Plaintiff was provided with information regarding procedures to be followed in 2009 if 

he did not receive a response to an IA. (See Id., at 9:8-11, citing Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 

937 (9th Cir. 2005).) 

Thus, the Findings and Recommendations correctly found that Defendants did not meet 

their burden as the moving party since their evidence did not definitively show that Plaintiff did 

not submit an IA on July 21, 2009 that had been lost, mishandled, or otherwise misplaced by 

prison staff and/or that there were procedures in place that had been given to Plaintiff as to what 

he should do if he did not receive a response to an IA he filed in 2009 that Plaintiff failed to 

follow. There is no credibility determination to be made on issues where Defendants failed to

submit evidence. An evidentiary hearing is thus not necessary. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 59 Filed 01/05/15 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

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 

Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. the Findings and Recommendations, filed on November 6, 2014 (Doc. 57), is 

adopted in full; 

2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed on May 9, 2014 (Doc. 43), is 

DENIED;

3. Defendants' request for an evidentiary hearing as contained in their objections 

which were filed on December 8, 2014 (Doc. 58), is DENIED; and

4. the case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for discovery and scheduling 

purposes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 59 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3