(PC) Klein v. Montoya, No. 1:2013cv01677 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust 24 be Denied, and Motions for Extension of Time 27 and to Strike 35 be Denied as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/27/15. Referred to Judge O'Neill; 15-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL KLEIN, Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 B. MONTOYA, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01677-LJO-SKO (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST BE DENIED, AND MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO STRIKE BE DENIED AS MOOT Defendants. 14 (Docs. 24, 27, and 35) 15 OBJECTION DEADLINE: FIFTEEN DAYS RESPONSE DEADLINE: TEN DAYS 16 _____________________________________/ 17 18 I. Procedural Background 19 Plaintiff Michael Klein, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 20 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 17, 2013. This action for 21 damages is proceeding against Defendants Montoya and Galvez for violating Plaintiff’s rights 22 under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution with respect to a clothed body 23 search involving sexual abuse. 24 On May 19, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s 25 failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 27 135 S.Ct. 403 (2014). (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 24, 2015, and Defendants 28 1 filed a reply on June 29, 2015.1 (Docs. 25, 26.) Plaintiff then filed a motion seeking leave to file a 2 proper opposition given his release from custody on July 9, 2015, and another opposition to 3 Defendants’ motion on July 15, 2015. (Docs. 27, 31-34.) Defendants filed a motion to strike on 4 July 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 11, 2015, and Defendants filed a reply on 5 September 18, 2015. (Docs. 35, 39, 40.) The motions were submitted on the record without oral 6 argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 7 II. Discussion 8 A. 9 Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with Legal Standard 10 respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner 11 confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 12 available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This statutory exhaustion requirement applies to 13 all inmate suits about prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002) 14 (quotation marks omitted), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or the relief offered by 15 the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and unexhausted claims 16 may not be brought to court, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007) (citing 17 Porter, 534 U.S. at 524). The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and the defendants bear 18 the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 549 U.S. at 216; Albino, 747 19 F.3d at 1166. “In the rare event that a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a 20 21 defendant may move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Otherwise, 22 the defendants must produce evidence to “prove that there was an available administrative remedy, 23 and that the prisoner did not exhaust that available remedy.” Id. at 1172. If the defendants carry 24 their burden, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff “to come forward with evidence 25 showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally 26 27 1 Plaintiff was provided with contemporaneous notice of the requirements for opposing a summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012); Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). (Doc. 24-1.) 28 2 1 available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. This requires the plaintiff 2 to “show more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 4 S.Ct. 2505 (1986)). “If the undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner 5 shows a failure to exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56.” Albino, 6 747 F.3d at 1166. However, “[i]f material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be 7 denied, and the district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts.” Id. 8 B. 9 On April 25, 2013, Defendant Montoya allegedly conducted a body search of Plaintiff at Summary of Facts 10 Avenal State Prison during which she grabbed and squeezed his penis and testicles, causing him 11 pain, and Defendant Galvez stood by and watched without intervening. (Doc. 7, Amend. Comp.) 12 Plaintiff submitted an inmate appeal on May 12, 2013, stating that Montoya rubbed his penis and 13 testicles and that he felt like he was being groped and sexually abused by her. (Doc. 24, Motion, 14 Donaldson Decl., Ex. B.) Plaintiff identified Galvez as a witness to the groping. (Id.) Plaintiff’s 15 appeal was denied at the third and final level of review on August 28, 2013, and he filed suit 16 approximately two months later. (Id., Voong Decl., Ex. B.) 17 The narrow issue in this case is whether Plaintiff’s appeal sufficed to exhaust his claim in 18 this action. Defendants argue that because Plaintiff alleges Montoya squeezed his penis and 19 testicles, causing him pain, but failed to set forth those allegations in his inmate appeal, he did not 20 “fully and properly” exhaust the available administrative remedies. (Id., 6:1-2 & 8:3-24.) For the 21 reasons that follow, the Court rejects this argument and finds that Plaintiff exhausted his claim. 22 C. 23 The exhaustion requirement was enacted “to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of Exhaustion of Available Administrative Remedy Process 24 prisoner suits; to this purpose, Congress afforded corrections officials time and opportunity to 25 address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.” Porter, 534 U.S. at 26 524-25; Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 27 1200-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Thus, “[t]he primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the 28 prison to a problem and facilitate its resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation.” Griffin v. 3 1 Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Jones, 549 U.S. at 219 (promotion of early 2 notice to those who might later be sued not thought to be one of the leading purposes of 3 exhaustion requirement) (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (5th Cir. 2004)). Because 4 exhaustion requirements are designed to deal with parties who do not want to exhaust and who 5 would prefer not to give the agency a fair and full opportunity to adjudicate their claims, proper 6 procedural and substantive exhaustion of administrative remedies, which demands compliance 7 with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules, is required. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 8 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006) (quotation marks omitted); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 9 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). Prisoners must “use all the steps the prison holds out, enabling the 10 prison to reach the merits of the issue.” Griffin, 557 F.3d at 1119 (citing Woodford, 548 U.S. at 11 90). 12 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has an 13 administrative remedy process for inmate grievances, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.1, and state 14 prisoners are required to this process prior to filing suit in federal court, Woodford, 548 U.S. at 8515 86; Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir. 2010). The process is initiated by submitting a 16 CDCR Form 602 “Inmate/Parolee Appeal” within thirty calendar days (1) of the event or decision 17 being appealed, (2) upon first having knowledge of the action or decision being appealed, or (3) 18 upon receiving an unsatisfactory departmental response to an appeal filed. Tit. 15, §§ 3084.2(a), 19 3084.8(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). The appeal must “describe the specific issue under 20 appeal and the relief requested,” and the inmate “shall list all staff member(s) involved and shall 21 describe their involvement in the issue.” Tit. 15, § 3084.2(a). Furthermore, the inmate “shall state 22 all facts known and available to him/her regarding the issue being appealed at the time of 23 submitting the Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form, and if needed, the Inmate Parolee/Appeal Form 24 Attachment.” Tit. 15, § 3084.2(a)(4). 25 In this case, Plaintiff’s inmate appeal placed prison officials on notice that Defendant 26 Montoya touched his genitals in a manner he found inappropriate and that Defendant Galvez saw 27 it occur. Given that Plaintiff named the staff members now being sued and he set forth specific 28 facts that mirror those now at issue in this lawsuit, his appeal was sufficient. It is not material that 4 1 Plaintiff used the words rubbed and groped in his appeal but alleges he was painfully squeezed in 2 his amended complaint. Plaintiff’s description of the contact and his assertion that he felt sexually 3 abused in his appeal were adequate to identify the issue now subject to litigation in this case and to 4 place prison officials on notice as to allegedly inappropriate sexual contact during a cross-gender 5 search. 6 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 7 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s appeal was sufficient to exhaust his Eighth Amendment 8 claim against Defendants Montoya and Galvez. Because Defendants did not meet their initial 9 burden of demonstrating Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust, the Court does not reach Plaintiff’s 10 arguments in opposition, and it recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file 11 a surreply and Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply be denied as moot. Williams v. 12 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172). 13 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 14 1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on May 19, 2015, be DENIED; 15 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, filed on July 9, 2015, be DENIED as 16 17 18 19 moot; and 3. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply, filed on July 28, 2015, be DENIED as moot. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 20 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 fifteen (15) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 22 file written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned 23 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Responses, if any, are due 24 within ten (10) days from the date the objections are filed. Local Rule 304(d). The parties are 25 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 1 appeal. Wilkerson, 772 F.3d at 838-39 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 2 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 27, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
