Opinion ID: 1435290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Initial Grievance

Text: The California Code of Regulations contains a multi-tiered administrative scheme for inmate grievances. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.5. To file a grievance, an inmate submits his complaint on California Department of Corrections Form 602 (referred to as a 602). Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.2(a). In the first, informal step of the grievance process, the grievance is filed directly with any correctional staff member. This informal level is waived for a variety of grievances, including those concerning alleged misconduct by a departmental peace officer. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5(a)(3)(G). The second level, also referred to as the First Formal Level, involves filing a 602 form with one of the institution's Appeals Coordinators. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5(b). Inmates are required to submit grievances to the Appeals Coordinator within fifteen working days of the incident at issue or of an unsatisfactory lower level decision. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(c). The decision of the Appeals Coordinator may be appealed to the Warden at the Second Formal Level. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5(c). The Third Formal Level, also referred to as the Director's Level, is the final avenue for administrative appeal. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5(d). On May 21, 2001, Brodheim filed an administrative grievance with Correctional Officer Hearsum as a result of an incident on May 10, 2001. Brodheim claimed that, on that day, while returning to work, Hearsum told Brodheim that Brodheim was out of bounds and instructed him to take a different route back to his work assignment. Brodheim felt he was not in violation of any rule, told Hearsum this, and asked what rule he was violating. Brodheim contends that Hearsum got visibly angry at this question, and that another correctional officer nearby also got involved, acting belligerently towards him, and ordered him to leave. In his grievance, Brodheim claimed the officers' actions were both contemptuous and discourteous towards him, in violation of Department of Corrections regulations. He requested that he either be informed in writing of the rule he had been violating, or alternatively for the officers to be told that no such rule existed and that they be remind[ed] ... of their responsibilities to remain both respectful and courteous at all times in their dealings with inmates. When Hearsum did not respond to Brodheim's original grievance, Brodheim filed a copy of the 602 form on June 18, 2001, directly with Appeals Coordinator Cry. Upon receiving the grievance, Cry categorized it as a staff complaint and rejected it as untimely because it was filed more than fifteen days after the incident. On June 20, 2001, Brodheim sent Cry an inmate request for interview, disputing this categorization of his grievance. Brodheim's request was stated as follows: This is not a staff complaint  any more than was my appeal involving C/O Lindstrom. I am requesting information (see part B). Any misconduct by C/O Hearsum or C/O Hernandez was incidental to the story. I want to know why I could not walk thru Unit I and I think I'm entitled to an answer. You're such a stickler for the rules as you see them. Why not teach staff that they are required to respond informally to 602's w/in 10 working days  or is it your position that Title 15 applies only against inmates? Or, is it your position that I am not entitled to the information I request? What exactly is your position, Mr. Cry  obstruct 602's at all costs? ? ? This appeal was timely submitted to C/O Hearsum w/in 15 working days. (See my 6/18 note.) Thank you for your cooperation. On June 21, 2001, Cry rejected the interview request with the following notation: The 695 [ [1] ] rejection form stands as noted. Untimely for a 5-10-01 issue. I'd also like to warn you to be careful what you write, req[u]est on this form.