Williams v. Paramo, No. 13-56004 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a pro se California prisoner, filed suit against defendants alleging violations of her constitutional rights to due process of law and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff alleged that prison officials started rumors that she was a convicted sex offender and changed her prison records. As a result, gang members threatened plaintiff and, when plaintiff reported the problem, prison officials refused to file her grievance and rejected her appeal. The court concluded that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), a court of appeals may require a three strike prisoner seeking in forma pauperis status to show an imminent danger at the time the notice of appeal is filed; the Andrews v. Cervantes standard is the appropriate one to be applied in determining whether a prisoner has shown an imminent danger on appeal, and that applying that standard to plaintiff’s case, she may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal; and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on the issue of exhaustion because defendants have not met their burden of establishing that defendant did not exhaust available administrative remedies. Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff's right to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court vacated the order of the district court and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of exhaustion.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel granted a prisoner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of whether the prisoner exhausted her administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The panel held that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and who has demonstrated in the district court that she falls within the imminent danger exception in order to proceed in forma pauperis must still qualify under this exception at the time of appeal by alleging a continued existence of imminent danger at the time the notice of appeal is filed. The panel further concluded that the standard set forth in Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007), applies in determining whether a prisoner has shown an imminent danger on appeal. Under Andrews, a prisoner may meet this requirement by alleging that prison officials continue with a practice that has injured her or others similarly situated in the past, or that there is a continuing effect resulting from such a practice. The panel further held that a prisoner who was found by the district court to sufficiently allege an imminent danger is entitled to a presumption that the danger continues at the time of the filing of the notice of appeal. Applying this standard to plaintiff, the panel determined that she could proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The panel concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and applying the burden-shifting test established in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1158 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) and Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996), the panel held that plaintiff met her burden of production in showing that administrative remedies were not available to her because she alleged that she was thwarted from filing a grievance and appeal. The panel held that defendants had not met their burden of establishing that plaintiff did not exhaust her available administrative remedies.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.