1 - OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHRISTOPHER LEE BARNES,

No. 2:15-cv-00520-HZ

Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.

J. OLIVE, 

Defendant.

Christopher Lee Barnes 

11865762 

Snake River Correctional Institution 

777 Stanton Blvd 

Ontario, OR 97914-8335 

Plaintiff Pro Se

Vanessa A. Nordyke

Oregon Department of Justice

1162 Court Street N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:15-cv-00520-HZ Document 21 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 5
2 - OPINION & ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff, Christopher Lee Barnes, an inmate at the Snake River Correctional 

Institution, filed this civil rights action claiming violations of his constitutional rights under the 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendant, Correctional Officer J. Olive, moves for 

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that Plaintiff has 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion. 

The Court grants Defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings two claims against Defendant. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

slammed Plaintiff’s head into a cinder block wall. Compl. at 4, ECF 2. Second, Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendant sexually assaulted Plaintiff “for the past six months.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff filed his 

complaint on March 30, 2015. Id. at 1.

STANDARD

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) states: “[n]o action shall be brought with 

respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, 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). The PLRA exhaustion 

requirement demands “proper exhaustion,” which means compliance with all deadlines and 

“other critical procedural rules.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 93 (2006).

It is the defendant’s burden “to prove that there was an available administrative remedy, 

and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 

1172 (9th Cir. 2014). The burden of production then shifts to the prisoner to “come forward with 

Case 2:15-cv-00520-HZ Document 21 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 5
3 - OPINION & ORDER

evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and 

generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. However, the 

“ultimate burden of proof remains with the defendant.” Id. The court must view all material facts 

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 1173. “If 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.

DISCUSSION

Under the PLRA, Plaintiff must “complete the administrative review process in 

accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to 

bringing suit in federal court.” Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88). To prove a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 

under the PLRA, a defendant must first prove there was an available administrative remedy,

which the prisoner did not exhaust. Albino 747 F.3d at 1172. 

Defendant satisfies his burden through the declaration of James A. Taylor, Grievance 

Coordinator at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI). Taylor Decl., ECF 18. Mr. Taylor’s 

declaration describes the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) grievance process. Id. at ¶¶ 

6-10. Mr. Taylor explains that an inmate may grieve, among other things, “any unprofessional 

behavior or action which may be directed toward an inmate by an employee [of ODOC]” or 

“sexual contact . . . between an employee or contractor and an inmate.” Id. at ¶ 8 (citing OAR 

291-109-0140(2)(a)-(g)). Mr. Taylor declares that he made “a thorough search” and review of 

records and determined that, while Plaintiff has filed thirteen grievances at SRCI since his arrival 

in November of 2012, none of the grievances were related to a physical or sexual assault. Id. at ¶ 

Case 2:15-cv-00520-HZ Document 21 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 5
4 - OPINION & ORDER

11. Furthermore, Mr. Taylor found no records indicating that any of the 13 grievances were 

directed at Defendant. Id. Consequently, Defendant has met his burden for demonstrating that 

Plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedies. See Williams, 775 F.3d at 1192 

(explaining that the demonstration of a system of available administrative remedies satisfies the 

initial step of the Albino burden-shifting inquiry).

Once Defendant demonstrates the existence of an unexhausted, available administrative 

remedy, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show that the relevant remedy was “ineffective, 

unobtainable, unduly prolonged, inadequate, or obviously futile.” See id. at 1191 (quoting Hilao 

v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 778 n. 5 (9th Cir.1996)). On Plaintiff’s complaint form, in the 

space provided for an explanation regarding his failure to file a grievance, Plaintiff writes: “No 

timely rem[e]dy avail[a]ble.” Plaintiff does not provide any explanation for what he means by 

this statement, nor did he respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In the absence 

of any further information or justification for not filing a grievance concerning his claims, 

Plaintiff has not met his burden for demonstrating the available administrative remedies were 

“effectively unavailable to him.” See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172.

///

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-00520-HZ Document 21 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 5
5 - OPINION & ORDER

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [17] because Plaintiff failed 

to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Accordingly, this case is 

DISMISSED. Pending motions, if any, are dismissed as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this ___________ day of _________________________, 2015.

 

__________________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00520-HZ Document 21 Filed 11/25/15 Page 5 of 5