UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JACOBE HALSEY 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THOMAS ARMSTRONG; DOUGLAS 

DOHERTY; and JUDY GILMORE, 

Defendants. 

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge: 

Introduction 

Civ. No. 2:15-CV-02004-AC 

OPINION AND 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Jacobe Halsey ("Halsey") brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act against three Oregon Department of 

Corrections ("DOC") employees (collectively "Defendants") alleging violations of his 

constitutional and civil rights while incarcerated in the Oregon state prison system. Specifically, 

Halsey, who is a Muslim, alleges Defendant Douglas Doherty ("Doherty") violated his rights to 

free exercise of religion by making "disrespectful comments about [Halsey] being a Muslim" 

and incorrectly informing Defendant Thomas Armstrong ("Armstrong") that Halsey had 

OPINION AND ORDER 1 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 14
habitually broken fast, resulting in Halsey's removal from Ramadan participation for failure to 

comply with fasting requirements. (Comp!., at 4.) 1 Halsey similarly maintains that Armstrong 

removed Halsey from Ramadan fast on July 12, 2014, and thereafter precluded Halsey from 

engaging in any religious activities. Finally, Halsey alleges that Defendant Judy Gilmore, 

Superintendent of Snake River Correctional Facility ("SRCI") ("Gilmore"), was aware of 

Doherty's and Armstrong's violative conduct but did nothing to remedy the situation. 

Defendants how move for summary judgment on Halsey's claim, arguing he failed to properly 

exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

("PLRA"). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is granted. 2 

Background 

Halsey is a DOC inmate currently housed at SRCI; he was most recently admitted to 

DOC custody on May 1, 2014. (Comp!., at 4; Taylor Deel. if 4.) Beginning in early June 2014, 

Halsey sought participation in a DOC-sanctioned Ramadan fast, an opportunity for Muslim 

inmates to participate in a holy month of fasting, prayer, and self-accountability. (Attach. to 

Comp!., at 20-21, 24 & 25.) However, Armstrong, SRCI's Chaplain and individual tasked with 

overseeing Ramadan participation at SRCI, denied Halsey's request to participate, citing 

"electronic records of [Halsey's] past religious acitivit[ies],'' which indicated Halsey solely 

participated in non-Islamic religious activities. (Attach. to Comp!., at 19, 25.) 

1

FED. R. CIV. P. lO(b) requires parties to state claims in numbered paragraphs; however, 

the generic form provided for prisoners to file a civil rights complaint does not number the 

paragraphs. Therefore, to the extent the court cites to the Complaint, the court will cite to the 

page number. 

2

The parties have consented to jurisdiction by magistrate judge in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c)(l). 

OPINION AND ORDER 2 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 14
Despite rejection, Halsey continued to protest Armstrong's decision. (Attach. to Comp!., 

at 20-21, 24.) On June 5, 2014, Halsey sent Armstrong an inmate communication form in which 

Halsey stated that he was a longtime Muslim, was being denied his First Amendment right to 

religious freedom, and vehemently requested that Armstrong "place [Halsey] on the list for the 

Ramadan fast." (Attach. to Comp!., at 24.) In the same inmate communication form, Halsey 

also noted that his family had converted to Islam prior to his birth and that Halsey had professed 

his faith to Islam by reciting the Shahada. (Attach. to Comp!., at 24.) Upon receipt of Halsey's 

inmate communication form, Armstrong directed Halsey to provide. him with confirmation that 

he performed the Shahada. (Attach. to Comp!., at 24.) Halsey verified that he "took Shahada" 

and Armstrong subsequently added Halsey to DOC's Ramadan list. (Attach. to Comp!., at 20-

21.) 

On July 12, 2014, however, Halsey was immediately "removed from Ramadan 

participation ... for not comply with fasting." (Attach. to Comp!., at 2.) Indeed, Armstrong had 

been informed by prison housing staff that, within the first two weeks of the Ramadan fast, 

Halsey had broken the fast by receiving or attempting to receive "six meals outside the fast 

[Halsey] requested to participate in." (Attach. to Comp!., at 10.) Thus, because DOC apparently 

does not allow inmates to continue to participate in Ramadan if they habitually break the fast, 

Armstrong removed Halsey from Ramadan participation. (Attach. to Comp!., at 10.) 

I. Inmate Discrimination Complaints 

Fallowing his removal, Halsey submitted two inmate discrimination complaints, 

Discrimination Complaint Nos. SRCI.2014.07.222 and SRCI.2014.07.221, alleging that he was 

discriminated against by Doherty and Armstrong when they removed him from Ramadan 

participation. (Attach. to Comp!. at 3-4, 7-8.) In the first discrimination complaint, 

OPINION AND ORDER 3 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 14
SRCI.2014.07.222, Halsey argued that the "sack meals" provided to inmates participating in 

Ramadan were insufficient to maintain daily caloric needs. (Attach. to Comp!., at 4.) Halsey 

also pointed out that, while he had indeed taken five lunch trays during the· first two weeks of the 

fast, inmates participating in Ramadan were allowed to do so, and there was no communication 

from prison staff to inmates that doing so constituted habitually breaking the fast. (Attach. to 

Comp!., at 3-4.) Finally, Halsey argued that his Qur'an, prayer rug, and "other religious 

materials" had been taken from him and were not provided to him "during [his] Ramadan fast," 

contravening his "right to participate in ... religious services." (Attach. to Comp!., at 4.) 

In his second discrimination complaint, SRCI.2014.07.221, Halsey similarly argued that 

he had taken four or five lunch trays from Doherty, who had been serving lunch trays, but that he 

had simply taken items off the trays to save "for after sunset," when Muslims are permitted to 

break fast. (Attach. to Comp!., at 7.) Halsey also argued that Doherty had been harassing him 

by telling Halsey that he was not a true Muslim and that he was "going to take his little Muslim 

food" to prevent Halsey from fasting. (Attach. to Comp!., at 7.) Finally, Halsey indicated that 

Doherty had told Halsey he could not take lunch trays; however, when Halsey pressed him to 

name the specific rules forbidding such action, Doherty replied that he received the information 

from an internal memo sent from Armstrong to prison staff but not provided to inmates. (Attach. 

to Comp!., at 7-8.) Because the memo was not provided to inmates, Halsey argued, as he did in 

his first complaint, he had no way of knowing that he was wrongly, and habitually, breaking the 

fast. (Attach. to Comp!., at 8.) 

Both of Halsey's discrimination complaints were accepted by SRCI' s gnevance 

coordinator, James Taylor ("Taylor"), the person tasked with processing and recording 

discrimination complaints and sending complaints to those charged with responding. (Attach. to 

OPINION AND ORDER 4 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 4 of 14
Comp!., at 5; Taylor Deel. if 1.) Taylor thereafter informed Halsey that the responses to his 

discrimination complaints would be combined pursuant to DOC rules, and on November 12, 

2014, Mark Nooth ("Nooth"), the individual whose responsibility it was to respond to Halsey's 

complaints, provided Halsey with his findings. (Attach. to Comp!., at 5, 6 & 10.) 

Nooth informed Halsey that, after speaking to Armstrong and Doherty, he had concluded 

there was insufficient evidence to support Halsey's allegations of discrimination. (Attach. to 

Comp!., at 6, 10.) In particular, Nooth stated that the evidence indicated Halsey habitually broke 

fast, and, while inmates can habitually break fast if ill, Halsey did not indicate he was sick. 

(Attach. to Comp!., at 6, 10.) Additionally, Nooth informed Halsey that Doherty had denied 

making harassing statements but did "readily admit he notified [Halsey] that he was reporting 

[Halsey's] meals to [Armstrong] and that [Halsey] would be removed from Ramadan 

participation." (Attach. to Comp!., at 6, 10.) Finally, Nooth notified Halsey of his right to 

appeal the finding, but, according to Talyor, Halsey did not do so. (Attach. to Comp!., at 6, 1 O; 

Taylor Deel. ifif 48-49.) 

II. Inmate Communication Forms 

In addition to the two inmate discrimination complaints, Halsey sent three inmate 

communication fo1ms between July 21, 2014, and September 10, 2014, to Armstrong in which 

Halsey alleged, among other things: that Doherty had harassed him by telling him he was not a 

true Muslim and threatening to take him off his Ramadan fast; that he had seen other inmates 

"take lunch trays" and been told doing so was all right; that he had simply taken food off of 

lunch trays in an effort to store it in his cell so that he could eat it after sunset; and that 

Armstrong failed to inform inmates that taking too many lunch trays would constitute a habitual 

breaking of the Ramadan fast, which would thereby prevent such inmates from participating in 

OPINION AND ORDER 5 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 5 of 14
Ramadan. (Attach. to Comp!., at 11-14, 15-18, 22-23 & 26.) Halsey informed Armstrong of his 

belief that these actions precluded him from freely exercising his religious beliefs. (Attach. to 

Comp!., at 15, 13-14, 22 & 26.) And, while Halsey acknowledged that Ramadan had already 

ended and "the damage [had been] done," he asked that Armstrong allow him to participate in a 

post-Ramadan feast. (Attach. to Comp!., at 13.) 

In his responses to Halsey's inmate communication fotms, Armstrong stated that he 

removed Halsey from the list of inmates participating in Ramadan because Halsey received 

"extra breakfast and [four] lunches between June 28 (Ramadan beings) and July 14," despite 

being informed by prison staff that Ramadan participants are not to eat lunch every day while 

fasting. (Attach. to Comp!., at 22.) Armstrong additionally noted that, while he understood 

Halsey's "thinking about taking a lunch [and] saving [it] until after sunset ... [inmates] are not 

authorized to save food in [their] cells ... and [there is] no way to verify that [the lunch was 

saved]." (Attach. to Comp!., at 19.) Third, Atmstrong stated that "[t]here is no feast following 

Ramadan per religious services procedure." (Attach. to Comp!., at 11.) And, finally, he asserted 

that, while he may not have notified inmates that taking too many lunch trays could constitute a 

habitual breaking of the Ramadan fast, the Qur' an and Hadith are "clear about fasting 

requirements and allowances," and he felt it unnecessary to inform practicing Muslims of the 

requirement, as "a Muslim would already know his faith requirements around fasting." (Attach. 

to Comp!., at 19.) 

III. Grievances 

During his time at SRCI, Halsey apparently lodged four grievances umelated to the 

above-mentioned discrimination complaints and inmate communication forms, one of which 

related to accommodations for his religious beliefs. (Taylor Deel. ifif 16-31.) In that grievance, 

OPINION AND ORDER 6 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 6 of 14
Grievance No. SRCI 2014.07.208, Halsey argued that his Ramadan meals contained pork and 

were insufficient to meet daily caloric needs. (Taylor Deel. Attach. 7, at 1; Attach. to Comp!., at 

1.) As required by DOC's grievance review system, Jerry Timblin ("Timblin"), SRCI's Food 

Services Manager, responded to Halsey's grievance, infotming Halsey that staff never used pork 

products in "sack lunches" during Ramadan and that "[t]he portions and calories are determined 

by the State Dietitian and not at the local level." (Taylor Deel. Attach. 11, at 1.) Halsey elected 

not to appeal Timblin's initial grievance response. (Taylor Deel.'\[ 25.) 

Standards 

Courts in the Ninth Circuit "treat an exhaustion defense under the PLRA within the 

framework of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003)). This means that a court 

should grant a motion for summary judgment premised on the prisoner's failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies "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. C1v. P. 56(a). 

Specifically, in a case when the movant argues the prisoner failed to exhaust nonjudicial 

remedies, the movant must produce evidence, which, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

prisoner, shows a failure to exhaust. Albino, 747, F.3d at 1169. If the movant meets his burden, 

the prisoner must "go beyond the pleadings [ ] by her own affidavits ... [to] designate specific 

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 

(1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). In a failure-to-exhaust case that means the prisoner 

must "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. On summary judgment, the court is bound to view all facts in 

OPINION AND ORDER 7 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 7 of 14
a light most favorable to the prisoner and must draw all justifiable inferences in the prisoner's 

favor. Narayan v. EGI, Inc., 616 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Discussion 

I. Exhaustion 

The PLRA requires that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before 

filing suit in federal court regarding prison conditions. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 

(9th Cir. 2009) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2008)). Failure to exhaust under the PLRA is an 

affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendants, who bear the burden of proving the 

absence of exhaustion. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211-12 (2007); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Exhaustion must be proper, meaning the "grievant must use all steps the prison holds out, 

enabling the prison to reach the merits of the issue." Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 

(2009). Moreover, to properly exhaust, the grievant must complete the administrative process in 

accordance with the prison's own grievance procedures. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 

(2006). This means the grievant must comply with the prison grievance system's "critical 

procedural rules" and appeal the grievance decision to its highest level within the grievance 

system prior to filing an action in court. Id. at 95; see also Jones, 549 U.S. at 218 (stating a 

prisoner must complete the administrative process in accordance with the prison's procedural 

rules). Simply put, the grievant must use all steps the prison administration holds out, and do so 

properly. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90. 

However, while the inmate must comply with the exhaustion requirement, the defendant 

has the burden of raising nonexhaustion as an affirmative defense and to "prove that there was an 

available administrative remedy, and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy." 

OPINION AND ORDER 8 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 8 of 14
Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. Once the defendant has carried that burden, the prisoner must provide 

evidence showing that the existing and generally available administrative remedies were 

effectively unavailable to him, for instance, by showing that prison officials declined to hear the 

merits of a grievance, or obstructed attempts to exhaust, or prevented inmates from exhausting 

because procedures for processing grievances were not followed. Id at 1172-73; see also Ngov. 

Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) (standing for the proposition that the prisoner 

must show that administrative procedures were unavailable to him by showing, for instance, that 

prison officials obstructed the prisoner's attempt to exhaust or that the prisoner was prevented 

from exhausting because prison officials did not follow internal procedurals). 

Oregon Administrative Rules 291-109-0100 through 291-109-0190 describe the threelevel internal grievance and appeal procedure for inmates confined in DOC facilities. OR. 

ADMIN. R. 291-109-0100 et seq. (2016). Inmates are informed of the grievance process during 

admission and orientation, and the procedures are also explained in the inmate handbook given 

to each inmate. (Taylor Deel. '1f 9.) Inmates are encouraged to first address their concerns with 

DOC staff through informal written or verbal communication. OR. ADMIN. R. 291-109-020 

(2016). If informal resolution is unsuccessful, an inmate may initiate a grievance by filing a 

DOC-provided form within thirty days of the incident giving rise to the complaint. OR. ADMIN. 

R. 291-109-0150 (2016). If the inmate properly grieved and is not satisfied with the initial 

grievance response, he or she may appeal to the functional unit manager within fourteen days of 

receiving the grievance response. OR. ADMIN. R. 291-109-0170(1) (2016). If the first appeal is 

denied, the inmate can appeal the functional unit manager's decision to the Assistant Director or 

designee, whose decision is final and not subject to further administrative review. OR. ADMIN. 

R. 291-109-0170(2) (2016). 

OPINION AND ORDER 9 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 9 of 14
When pertinent, an inmate may pursue administrative remedies through a separate 

process specifically reserved for discrimination issues. Oregon Administrative Rules 291-006-

0005 through 291-006-0045 describe the discrimination complaint process, which is similar to 

the grievance process. If an inmate believes he has been subjected to discrimination on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, or handicap, the inmate, or a 

representative for the inmate, may file a written complaint through the prison department's 

discrimination complaint process. OR. ADMIN. R. 291-006-0015 (2016). The complaint must be 

directed to the functional unit manager of the unit in which the inmate is assigned and must be 

filed within thirty days of the alleged act of discrimination. OR. ADMIN. R. 291-006-0031 (2016). 

If, after receiving a response from the functional unit manager, the inmate is dissatisfied, the 

inmate may appeal the response to the Inspector General or designee within fourteen days from 

the date the response was sent to the inmate by submitting an inmate communication form to the 

discrimination complaint coordinator specifically requesting review. OR. ADMIN. R. 291-006-

0040 (2016). "The inmate must attach the original discrimination complaint, original 

attachments and the department's response" to the inmate communication form; the forms will 

then be forwarded to the Inspector General or designee. OR. ADMIN. R. 291-006-0040(1) (2016). 

The decision by the Inspector General or designee is final. OR. ADMIN. R. 291-006-0040(3) 

(2016), As with the general grievance process, the prisoner is required to exhaust all 

administrative remedies prior to bringing suit in federal court. See Fabela v. Andrews, No. 05-

228-ST, 2006 WL 2487320 (D. Or. Aug. 28, 2006) (standing for the proposition that a prisoner 

who lodges a discrimination complaint must exhaust all available administrative remedies prior 

to filing suit in federal court). 

OPINION AND ORDER 10 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 10 of 14
I. Halsey's Failure to Exhaust 

Halsey argues Defendants violated his First Amendment free-exercise rights in numerous 

ways. First, Halsey argues, Doherty violated his free-exercise rights by making offensive 

comments about Halsey's religion and incorrectly informing Armstrong that Halsey had 

habitually broken fast, resulting in Halsey's removal from Ramadan participation. Second, 

Halsey asserts that Armstrong wrongly removed him from Ramadan fast and subsequently 

precluded Halsey from engaging in any religious activities. Finally, Halsey alleges that Gilmore 

was aware of Doherty's and Armstrong's conduct but did nothing to remedy the situation. 

Defendants move for summary judgment on Halsey's claim, maintaining that Halsey failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as required by the PLRA, and that they 

are therefore entitled to summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' 

Motion is granted. 

A. Inmate Discrimination Complaints 

The record indicates Halsey failed to appeal his discrimination complaints to the highest 

level within DOC's administrative review system prior to filing suit. Halsey filed two inmate 

discrimination complaints pertaining to these allegations. In them, Halsey argued that Doherty 

had been harassing him by threatening to take his "Muslim food" and telling him that he was not 

a true Muslim. (Attach. to Comp!., at 7.) Additionally, in response to Armstrong's explanation 

that Halsey was removed from Ramadan for attempting to receive meals outside of fast, Halsey 

asserted that the sack meals provided to inmates participating in Ramadan were insufficient to 

meet prisoners' caloric needs and that, as a result, he took four to five lunch trays to save "for 

after sunset," as other inmates participating in Ramadan had been permitted to do. (Attach. to 

Comp!., at 7.) Moreover, Halsey explained, there was no communication from prison staff to 

OPINION AND ORDER 11 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 11 of 14
inmates that taking lunch trays could be deemed as habitually breaking the fast. Base1 on these 

assertions, Halsey argued that Armstrong wrongly removed him from Ramadan fast and 

prevented him from engaging in religious activities. 

On November 12, 2014, Nooth responded to Halsey's discrimination complaints. In his 

response, Nooth stated that there was insufficient evidence to support Halsey's allegations of 

discrimination. Nooth notified Halsey of his right to appeal the finding. The record appears to 

show, however, that Halsey failed to appeal Nooth's response. The court does note, though, that 

Halsey did attach a "Notice of Denial" to his Complaint. (See Attach. to Comp!., at 1.) The 

Notice of Denial states that a DOC investigation found no merit to Halsey's allegations regarding 

SRCI' s denial of his ability to participate in Ramadan and that Halsey's allegation must therefore 

be denied in its entirety. This document could evidence an appeal of Nooth's response, but 

Halsey failed to provide the court with any explanation as to the document's origins or relation, 

if any, to Halsey's discrimination complaints - or any other grievance or complaint. Simply put, 

the court has no way of knowing whether this document evidences an appeal. Absent any other 

evidence, the court is left to rely on Taylor's declaration, which states that Halsey failed to 

appeal Nooth's response - and, for that matter, any other grievance or complaint - to the highest 

level within the grievance system prior to filing this action. 

B. Grievance 

The record also shows Halsey failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect 

to the grievance he filed relating to this matter. Halsey filed Grievance No. SRCI 2014.07.208, 

arguing his Ramadan meals contained pork and were insufficient to meet daily caloric needs, a 

violation of SRCI' s duty to accommodate his religious practices. Pmsuant to DOC' s grievance 

review system, Timblin responded to Halsey's grievance, notifying Halsey that staff never used 

OPINION AND ORDER 12 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 12 of 14
pork products in sack meals during Ramadan and that portion sizes and calories are set by the 

state dietitian, not at the local level. Halsey did not to appeal Timblin's response to the 

functional unit manager, as he is allowed to do under OR. ADMIN. R. 291-109-0170(1). 

Consequently, Halsey failed to appeal the grievance decision to its highest level within DOC's 

grievance system prior to filing this action. 

C. Inmate Communication Forms 

Aside from the two inmate discrimination complaints and single grievance, there is no 

indication in the record that Halsey submitted any other grievances or discrimination complaints 

pertaining to his claim for relief. Halsey did file a number of inmate communication forms 

pertaining to these issues, but such forms, by themselves, are not "attempts to grieve" within 

DOC's formal grievance procedures. Tolle v. Or. Dep 't of Corr., No. 2: 11-cv-00980-MO, 2012 

WL 775060, at * 2 (D. Or. Mar. 6, 2012) (holding that inmate communication forms are not 

"attempts to grieve") (internal quotations omitted). Rather, inmate communication forms are 

entirely separate from formal grievances and are "designed for inmate use in communicating 

with employees, volunteers, or contractors," and, where appropriate, receiving responses from 

the same. (See Taylor Deel. Attach. 2, at 2.) In sh01i, they do not constitute a formal step in the 

administrative review process, and, therefore, their use does not constitute exhaustion of the 

administrative process. Consequently, the record demonstrates that Halsey failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies prior to bringing this action. 

D. Halsey's Burden to Show the Court That Available Remedies Were Made Unavailable 

to Him 

Because the Defendants carried their burden by showing the court that Halsey had 

administrative remedies available and that he did not exhaust them, Halsey was required to 

provide the court with evidence showing there is something in his particular case that made the 

OPINION AND ORDER 13 {TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 13 of 14
existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. Halsey, 

however, has not provided the court with any evidence that the existing and generally available 

administrative remedies were unavailable to him; indeed, he did not even respond to Defendants' 

summary judgment motion. Thus, the record shows Halsey did not exhaust his administrative 

remedies prior to bringing this action, and Defendants' summary judgment motion must 

necessarily be granted. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, Defendants have shown that Halsey had administrative 

remedies available and failed to properly exhaust those remedies. The burden thus shifted to 

Halsey to direct the court to evidence showing that the existing and generally available 

administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. Halsey failed to meet that burden. 

Consequently, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt No. 16), based on the PLRA's 

exhaustion requirement, is GRANTED. 

DATED thiso('tifday of April, 2016. 

OPINION AND ORDER 14 

JOH,N V. ACOSTA 

United SMtes Magistrate Judge 

{TJK} 

Case 2:15-cv-02004-AC Document 24 Filed 04/28/16 Page 14 of 14