Celis v. Ruiz et al, No. 3:2019cv00920 - Document 24 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON GROUNDS OF FAILURE TO PROPERLY EXHAUST by Judge Charles R. Breyer: Granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Celis v. Ruiz et al Doc. 24 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 MIGUEL A. CELIS, V74892, Plaintiff, 6 7 8 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 v. R. RUIZ, et al., Case No. 19-cv-00920-CRB (PR) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON GROUNDS OF FAILURE TO PROPERLY EXHAUST (ECF No. 22) Defendant(s). Currently before the court for decision is defendants’ motion for summary judgment under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the grounds that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust 12 available administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform 13 Act (PLRA). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 14 15 On February 2, 2019, plaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed a pro 16 se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his health and safety by 17 several correctional and medical officials at SVSP. ECF No. 1. 18 Plaintiff alleges that on November 23, 2017, Correctional Officer R. Ruiz acted with 19 deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s health and safety when, in an attempt to stop an assault on 20 plaintiff by another prisoner, Ruiz fired a rubber bullet at close range and without warning hitting 21 plaintiff on the head and causing him serious head injury. Id. at 6. Plaintiff further alleges that 22 doctors Steven Virant, Carl Bourne and Anthony Huyuth, and Chief Medical Officer Bright, have 23 been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to properly address and treat 24 his repeated complaints of severe headaches, dizziness and memory loss. Id. at 8-12 25 Defendants move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on 26 grounds that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing 27 suit, as required by the PLRA. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff did not file an opposition despite being 28 advised to do so. Dockets.Justia.com STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS United States District Court Northern District of California 1 2 On January 8, 2018, plaintiff filed grievance SVSP-18-000156, which alleged that Ruiz 3 used inappropriate or excessive force by shooting plaintiff with a rubber foam bullet during an 4 altercation between plaintiff and another prisoner on November 27, 2017. ECF No. 22, Spaich 5 Decl., Ex. B at 3-6. The grievance bypassed the first level of review and was processed as a staff 6 complaint at the second level of review. Id. at 7-8. On February 4, 2018, the grievance was 7 denied at the second level. Id. The second level response found that Ruiz did not violate 8 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) policy and noted that plaintiff 9 was interviewed about the issue, and his only statement in support of his claim was “no 10 comment.” Id. Plaintiff appealed the denial to the third level of review. At the third level, the 11 office of appeals received plaintiff’s appeal on March 1, 2018 but cancelled it on the ground that 12 plaintiff exceeded the time limits to submit the appeal despite having the opportunity to do so 13 within the prescribed time limits. Id. at 2. The letter informing him of the cancellation decision 14 advised the he could separately appeal the cancellation decision. Id. Plaintiff did not do so. Id. at 15 Ex. A. On November 28, 2018, plaintiff filed healthcare grievance SVSP-HC-18002544, asserting 16 17 that he was shot with a rubber foam bullet on November 27, 2017, requesting an MRI, and 18 claiming that medical staff violated his constitutional rights by denying the MRI. ECF No. 22, 19 Gates Decl., Ex. B at 4-5. He received a response from the institutional level – the first level of 20 review – stating that no intervention by the institution was necessary. Id. at 2-3. The response 21 also notified plaintiff that he could appeal the decision by submitting his grievance to the 22 headquarters level, and the headquarters level review would constitute the final disputation and 23 exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. Plaintiff did not appeal to the headquarters level. Id. at 24 Ex. A. DISCUSSION 25 26 27 28 A. Standard of Review “The PLRA mandates that inmates exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing ‘any suit challenging prison conditions,’ including, but not limited to, suits under § 1983.” 2 1 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 2 81, 85 (2006)). To the extent that the evidence in the record permits, the appropriate procedural 3 device for pretrial determination of whether administrative remedies have been exhausted under 4 the PLRA is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Id. at 1168. The burden is on the 5 defendant to prove that there was an available administrative remedy that the plaintiff failed to 6 exhaust. Id. at 1172. If the defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the prisoner to 7 present evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and 8 generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. Id. The ultimate 9 burden of proof remains with the defendant, however. Id. If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prisoner shows a failure to United States District Court Northern District of California 10 11 exhaust, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56. Id. at 1166. But if material 12 facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied and the district judge rather than a jury 13 should determine the facts in a preliminary proceeding. Id. 14 B. 15 Analysis The PLRA amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with 16 respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner 17 confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are 18 available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Section 1997e(a) requires “proper exhaustion” of 19 available administrative remedies. Ngo, 548 U.S. at 93. A prisoner not only must pursue every 20 available step of the prison appeal process but also must adhere to “deadlines and other critical 21 procedural rules” of that process. Id. at 90. “[I]t is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, 22 that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). 23 A prisoner must “exhaust his administrative remedies prior to sending his complaint to the 24 district court.” Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). He 25 cannot comply with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement “by exhausting available administrative 26 remedies during the course of the litigation.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 27 2012) (citation omitted). 28 CDCR provides any prisoner or parolee under its jurisdiction the right to appeal “any 3 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the department or its staff that the inmate or 2 parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or 3 welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). CDCR’s appeal process consists of three levels of 4 appeal: (1) first level appeal filed with one of the institution’s appeal coordinators, (2) second level 5 appeal filed with the institution head or designee, and (3) third level appeal filed with the CDCR 6 director or designee. Id. §§ 3084.7, 3084.8. A prisoner exhausts CDCR’s appeal process by 7 obtaining a decision from the third level of appeal review. Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 8 (9th Cir. 2010). A cancelation or rejection of an appeal does not exhaust available administrative 9 remedies. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b). A cancelled appeal may later be accepted if a 10 determination is made that the cancellation was in error or new information is received that makes 11 the appeal eligible for further review. Id. § 3084.6(a)(3). A prisoner therefore must appeal the 12 decision to cancel an appeal in order to exhaust. See id. § 3084.6(e). 13 To submit a grievance, an inmate must use a CDCR Form 602 to “describe the specific 14 issue under appeal and the relief requested.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a). Each grievance 15 is limited to one issue or related set of issues. Id. § 3084.2(a)(1). A grievance should include 16 sufficient information “to allow prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures.” Griffin 17 v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation omitted). 18 Prisoners also may file complaints regarding healthcare policies, decision, actions, 19 conditions, or omissions using a CDCR Form 602. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3999.226, 20 3999.227(a). Such complaints are subject to two levels of review – an institutional level of review 21 and a headquarters level of review. Id. 22 There are “three kinds of circumstances in which an administrative remedy, although 23 officially on the books, is not capable of use to obtain relief.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 24 1859 (2016). First, “an administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what regulations or 25 guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or 26 consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates.” Id. Second, “an administrative 27 scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use.” Id. Third, an 28 administrative remedy is not available “when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking 4 1 advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Id. at 2 1860. 3 The evidence submitted by defendants shows that plaintiff did not file an appeal 4 challenging the cancellation of SVSP-18-000156 or an appeal challenging the denial of SVSP- 5 HC-18002544. In both instances, the responses to plaintiff’s grievances informed him of the steps 6 he needed to take in order to exhaust available administrative remedies but he failed to do so. 7 There is no evidence that plaintiff was prevented from taking these steps by officers unable or 8 unwilling to provide any relief, that the administrative scheme was incapable of use, or that he was 9 thwarted by prison administrators from taking advantage of the grievance process. See id. at 10 1859-60. In sum, the evidence submitted by defendants meets their burden of proving that there was United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 an available administrative remedy that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust in connection with his 13 § 1983 claims before filing this action. See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172. The burden then shifted to 14 plaintiff to present evidence that there was something in this particular case that made existing and 15 generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. See id. Plaintiff did 16 not do so. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56. See id. at 17 1166. CONCLUSION 18 19 For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) on 20 grounds that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit 21 is GRANTED and, pursuant to the law of the circuit, plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without 22 prejudice. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 23, 2019 ______________________________________ CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge 27 28 5 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MIGUEL A. CELIS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00920-CRB Plaintiff, 7 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 8 9 R. RUIZ, et al., Defendants. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 13 14 15 16 17 That on October 23, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 18 19 20 Miguel A. Celis ID: V74892 Salinas Valley State Prison P.O. Box 1050 Soledad, CA 93960 21 22 Dated: October 23, 2019 23 24 25 26 27 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court By:________________________ Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 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.
