Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-03019/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-03019-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Hendrix
Defendant
C. Jacobsen
Defendant
Robert Ulloa
Plaintiff
C. Vick
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ULLOA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. JACOBSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.18-cv-03019-HSG (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Robert Ulloa, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees at Pelican Bay. In its review of 

the complaint, the Court found that the allegations, liberally construed, appeared to give rise to an 

Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force against Correctional Officers C. Vick and J. Hendrix 

for shooting Plaintiff in an incident that occurred on May 24, 2017 and an Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Doctor C. Jacobsen for failing to 

extract the bullets from Plaintiff’s limbs, failing to provide physical therapy and failing to house 

him in the clinic after his return from the hospital. On March 11, 2019, the defendants filed a 

motion for summary judgment based on lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff

has not filed an opposition. As discussed below, the motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD 

I. Summary Judgment Motion Based on Failure to Exhaust

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to 

prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in 

any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion in prisoner cases is mandatory. Woodford v. Ngo, 

548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006).

The PLRA requires “proper exhaustion” of administrative remedies. Id. at 93. To meet 

Case 4:18-cv-03019-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

this standard, prisoners must not only lodge a formal complaint, but also pursue it through each 

stage of the administrative process in “compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical 

procedural rules” as a precondition to suing in federal court. Id. at 90. The requirement cannot be 

satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or 

appeal.” Id. A grievance does not need to articulate a legal theory, but it must alert the prison to 

the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought. McCollum v. California Dep’t of Corr. & 

Rehab., 647 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Procedurally, failure to exhaust under the PLRA is an affirmative defense. Jones v. Bock, 

549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). In the Ninth Circuit, a motion for summary judgment is the proper 

vehicle to decide whether a prisoner has exhausted administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 

F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). A defendant has the burden to prove that there was an 

available administrative remedy and that the prisoner did not exhaust it. Id. at 1172. Once the 

defendant meets that burden, the burden 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. A plaintiff must prove that 

he took reasonable and appropriate steps to exhaust and was precluded from exhausting, not 

through his own fault, but by the fault of prison officials. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 

(9th Cir. 2010). To determine the issue of exhaustion, all the facts in the record must be viewed in 

the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1173 (citing Liberty Lobby, 

477 U.S. at 247-50). 

II. Department of Corrections Procedures for Administrative Appeals

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) provides any 

inmate under its jurisdiction the right to appeal “any policy, decision, action, condition, or 

omission by the department or its staff that the inmate can demonstrate as having a material 

adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). To 

initiate an appeal, the inmate must submit a CDCR Form 602 describing the issue to be appealed 

and the relief requested to the appeals coordinator’s office at the institution. Id. § 3084.2(a)-(c). 

CDCR’s appeal process consists of three formal levels of appeal: (1) first formal level 

Case 4:18-cv-03019-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

appeal filed with one of the institution’s appeal coordinators, (2) second formal level appeal filed 

with the institution head or designee, and (3) third formal level appeal filed with the CDCR 

director or designee. Id. § 3084.7 (a)-(c). A prisoner exhausts the appeal process when he 

completes the third level of review. Id. § 3084.1(b); Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 (9th 

Cir. 2010). A cancellation of an appeal does not exhaust administrative remedies. Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b). An appeal may be cancelled if the inmate submits the appeal later than 

the prescribed time constraint, even though the inmate had the opportunity to submit it within the 

prescribed time limit. Id. § 3084.6(c)(4). An inmate may separately appeal the cancellation. Id.

§ 3084.6(e). A cancelled appeal may later be accepted if a determination is made that cancellation 

was made in error or new information is received which makes the appeal eligible for further 

review. Id. § 3084.6(a)(3). 

The same regulations apply to the exhaustion of medical grievances. However, medical 

appeals are processed by the California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”). Gates 

Dec. ¶ 3. During the time that Plaintiff filed his appeals, first and second level health care appeals 

were processed by staff located at the inmate’s penal institution and third-level health care appeals

were processed at CCHCS Headquarters. Gates Dec. ¶ 6.1

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants’ Evidence

Plaintiff’s complaint lists three administrative appeals that he alleges exhausted his claims: 

PBSP-C-17-01291; PBSP HC 17-030248 and PBSP HC 17-030223. Comp. 2. 

Defendants submit the following evidence about these appeals: 

A. Excessive Force Appeal—PBSP-C-17-01291

On June 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed Appeal No. PBSP-17-01291 which alleged claims against 

Pelican Bay officers who shot him during a riot on May 24, 2017. Voong Dec., Ex. C. The 

appeal was bypassed at the First Level of Review and Plaintiff received a second-level response 

on July 20, 2017. Id. The second level response partially granted the appeal because, after 

 

1 On September 1, 2017, new regulations amended the health care appeal process. Gates Dec. ¶ 7.

Case 4:18-cv-03019-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

investigating and interviewing Plaintiff, the appeal was referred to the Office of Internal Affairs 

and the Deadly Force Investigative Team for review. Royal Dec., Ex. C. This response was 

delivered to Plaintiff on July 20, 2017. Voong Dec., Ex. C. The second level response informed 

Plaintiff of the following:

If you are dissatisfied with the Second Level response, explain 

reason below; attach supporting documents and submit by mail for 

Third Level Review. It must be received within 30 calendar days of 

receipt of prior response. . . 

Id.

On September 4, 2017, Plaintiff submitted the appeal to the third level of review, stating he 

was dissatisfied with the second level response. Id. On October 19, 2017, The third level review 

at the Office of Appeals cancelled the appeal. Id., Ex. D. The third level of review stated:

Your appeal has been cancelled pursuant to California Code of 

Regulations, Title 15, Section (CCR) 3084.6(c)(4). Time limits for 

submitting the appeal are exceeded even though you had the 

opportunity to submit within the prescribed time constraints. 

The Second Level Response was returned to you on 7/20/17. The 

appeal package was submitted in our office on 9/7/17. This exceeds 

time constraints to submit for third level review.

Pursuant to CCR 3084.6(e), once an appeal has been cancelled, that 

appeal may not be resubmitted. However, a separate appeal can be 

filed on the cancellation decision. Be advised, you must submit an 

appeal of a cancellation to the appeals office that issued the 

cancellation. The original appeal may only be resubmitted if the 

appeal on the cancellation is granted. You have 30 calendar days to 

appeal the cancellation. Time constraints begin from the date on the 

screen out form which cancelled your appeal.

Id. 

M. Voong, Chief of the California Department of Corrections Office of Appeals, has 

submitted a declaration stating that he oversees staff at the Office of Appeals, where third level 

inmate non-medical administrative appeals are received, screened, logged, routed and assigned. 

Voong Dec. ¶ 3. Voong is familiar with the recordkeeping system at the Office of Appeals and is 

able to verify the status of a California inmate’s non-medical third-level administrative appeal. Id. 

The Office of Appeals keeps an electronic record of each non-medical inmate appeal that has 

proceeded to the third level of review. Id. ¶ 4. At the third level, the appeal is assigned a new 

Case 4:18-cv-03019-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/21/20 Page 4 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

third-level log number that is known as the IAB Number. Id. The following information is kept 

in the electronic record for each grievance: the IAB Number, the appeal category, institutional log 

numbers assigned at the first and second levels of review, the inmate’s name and CDCR number, 

the institution where the appeal arose, the date the appeal was received and closed and its final 

disposition. Id. Copies of submitted inmate appeals and the related lower level responses are 

stored in the electronic record. Id.

The electronic database can generate a report regarding each inmate’s history of appeals at 

the third level, which is called an Appellant Appeal History. Id. ¶ 11. At the request of the 

Attorney General’s Office, the Office of Appeals electronic database was reviewed for appeals 

submitted by Plaintiff and a computer printout of that result was generated. Id. A copy of 

Plaintiff’s third-level Appellant Appeal History is submitted as Exhibit B. Id. Exhibit B shows 

that Plaintiff never submitted a non-medical appeal that was accepted at the third level for review. 

Id. ¶ 12. The printout shows that, on September 7, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an appeal to the third 

level that was assigned Appeal No. 1710485 and this appeal was cancelled at the third level for 

failure to meet time limits. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. The Office of Appeals did not receive an appeal from 

Plaintiff challenging the cancellation of this appeal. Id. ¶ 15. 

B. Health Care Appeals—PBSP HC 17030223 and PSBP HC 17030248

L. Dalbec, the California Department Of Corrections Health Care Grievance Coordinator, 

has submitted a declaration stating that he manages the Health Care Grievance Office at Pelican 

Bay, where he assists in the processing of all inmate health care appeals. Dalbec Dec. ¶ 1. Dalbec 

is also the custodian of health care appeal records at Pelican Bay and can verify if a Pelican Bay 

inmate has submitted a health care appeal. Id. 

All levels of health care appeals are tracked through a computer database called the Health 

Care Appeals and Risk Tracking System (“HCARTS”). Id. ¶ 3. When the Health Care Grievance 

Office receives a medical appeal, it is manually entered into HCARTS. Id. ¶ 4. 

At the request of the Attorney General’s Office, a review was conducted of the health care 

appeals submitted by Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 5. Dalbec reviewed Plaintiff’s appeal history and found that 

Plaintiff filed two health care appeals while he was at Pelican Bay— PBSP-HC-17030223 and 

Case 4:18-cv-03019-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/21/20 Page 5 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

PBSP-HC-17030248. Id. ¶ 6. 

Health Care Appeal No. PBSP-HC-17030223 is the same appeal that is logged as PBSP-C17-1291. Id. ¶ 7. The appeal has two log numbers because it contained both medical and nonmedical issues. Id. When this happens, the appeal is bifurcated and the issues are addressed 

separately. Id. PBSP-HC-17030223 was submitted on June 19, 2017. Id. ¶ 8. The appeal alleged 

inappropriate medical treatment on May 24, 2017 because: (1) medical staff did not treat 

Plaintiff’s wounds appropriately after he was shot; (2) after Plaintiff was treated at the hospital for 

the bullet wounds, he was placed in administrative segregation instead of the medical clinic for 

observation; and, (3) while he was in administrative segregation, medical staff attempted to take 

his crutches away. Id.; Gates Dec., Ex. D. The first-level response was dated July 25, 2017 and 

delivered to Plaintiff on July 26, 2017. Dalbec Dec. ¶ 8; Gates Dec., Ex. C. The first-level 

response stated the following: (1) Plaintiff’s care and triage of his wounds on May 24, 2017 was 

appropriate, because, based on the medical information, Plaintiff was assessed, deemed stable and 

care was provided in a timely manner; and (2) Plaintiff’s crutches were ordered for two weeks, 

expiring on June 16, 2017 at which time staff was required to remove them; however, Plaintiff’s 

primary care provider extended the order for the crutches until June 30, 2017. Id. 

The HCARTS records show that Plaintiff did not appeal the first-level response to the 

second or third level. Dalbec. Dec. ¶ 9. 

Plaintiff filed PBSP HC 17030248 on June 22, 2017. Dalbec Dec. ¶ 11; Gates Dec., Ex. E. 

This appeal alleged the following: (1) after Plaintiff was shot on May 24, 2017, medical staff did 

not provide medical first aid to him, instead placing him in a holding cell where medical staff 

tagged his injuries to identify their location, but did not bandage or apply pressure to the wounds; 

(2) when he was bleeding and in pain, medical staff simply inspected his leg, said the bleeding 

was caused by his circulation and walked away; (3) when Plaintiff returned from the hospital, he 

was placed in administrative segregation without being housed in an infirmary or medical setting 

for observation by medical staff; (4) Plaintiff requested a wheel chair, but was just issued crutches; 

and (5) on June 15, 2017, medical staff attempted to remove the crutches. Id. 

The first level response, which denied the appeal, is dated August 8, 2017 and was 

Case 4:18-cv-03019-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/21/20 Page 6 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

delivered to Plaintiff on August 9, 2017. Id.; Dalbec Dec. ¶ 11. Plaintiff did not appeal this 

response to the second or third level of review. Id. ¶ 12. 

C. Plaintiff’s Knowledge of Appeal Process

Plaintiff studied the process for filing administrative appeals in the Pelican Bay law 

library, where he reviewed the regulations for filing appeals. Ross Dec., Ex. A, Ulloa Deposition 

(“Depo.”) at 27. Plaintiff understood the time requirements for filing appeals and that he had to 

submit the appeals to all three levels. Id. at 28. However, he thought the 30-day deadline was

only for filing the first appeal. Id. at 266. And he didn’t realize he had to file an appeal after the 

third-level review was cancelled because it was filed late. Id. at 268. However, Plaintiff had 

access to the law library, he received a copy of Title 15 which contains the regulations for filing 

administrative appeals, and he had the opportunity to review all of these. Id. In addition, the 602 

Form notified Plaintiff about the 30-day deadline to appeal a second-level appeal to the third level. 

Royal Dec., Ex. B.; Voong Dec., Ex. C. And the third level response notified Plaintiff that, within 

30 days of receipt of the third level response, he could file an appeal of the cancellation decision. 

Voong Dec., Ex. D.

II. Analysis

Because Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, 

Defendants’ evidence is undisputed. Defendants have submitted evidence that Plaintiff filed an 

administrative appeal regarding his excessive force claim, which was bypassed at the first level 

and which received a second-level response that was sent to Plaintiff on July 20, 2017. Plaintiff 

challenged various aspects of the second level response and sent it to the third level for review. 

However, Plaintiff sent his appeal to the third level on September 4, 2017, which was beyond the 

30-day deadline for appealing to the third level. Missing the 30-day deadline resulted in the 

appeal being cancelled. The cancellation of an appeal at the third level does not exhaust 

administrative remedies. Plaintiff knew about the 30-day deadline for filing appeals because he 

had access to the Pelican Bay law library where he studied the regulations about inmate appeals. 

He was also notified about the 30-day deadline to file a third-level appeal in the 602 Form and he 

was notified about appealing a cancellation of his appeal in the third-level response cancelling his 

Case 4:18-cv-03019-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/21/20 Page 7 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

appeal. 

Defendants’ evidence meets their burden of proving there was an available administrative 

remedy for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim but that he did not exhaust it. Under Albino v. Baca, 

747 F. 3d at 1170, Plaintiff must now come forward with evidence showing there was something 

particular in his case that made the generally available remedies unavailable to him. Plaintiff has 

failed to do so. Therefore, Defendants have shown that Plaintiff failed to exhaust this claim.

Defendants have submitted evidence that Plaintiff filed at the first level of review two 

administrative appeals about his medical treatment after he was shot on May 24, 2017. 

Defendants also have submitted evidence showing that Plaintiff knew he had to submit his appeals 

to three levels of review to exhaust his claims and that he did not appeal the denial of his appeals 

to the second and third levels of review. This evidence meets Defendants’ burden of proving there 

was an available administrative remedy for Plaintiff’s medical appeals which he did not exhaust. 

This evidence is undisputed because Plaintiff has not filed evidence in opposition. Therefore, 

Defendants have shown that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his medical claim.

Because the undisputed evidence shows Plaintiff failed to exhaust any of his claims, 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on lack of exhaustion is granted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. This order 

terminates docket number 19. The clerk shall issue a separate judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/21/2020

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-03019-HSG Document 21 Filed 01/21/20 Page 8 of 8