Mills v. Mitchell et al, No. 4:2016cv05095 - Document 49 (N.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER REOPENING CASE; VACATING JUDGMENT; VACATING IN PART ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT; STAYING ACTION AND REFERRING FOR SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/19/2021. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mills v. Mitchell et al Doc. 49 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JEFFREY MILLS, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 K. MITCHELL, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-05095-HSG ORDER REOPENING CASE; VACATING JUDGMENT; VACATING IN PART ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT; STAYING ACTION AND REFERRING FOR SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK 12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) and proceeding pro 14 se, filed the instant civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the 15 Court REOPENS the instant action; VACATES the March 19, 2018 judgment; VACATES in part 16 the prior grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants; and REFERS this case for settlement 17 proceedings. 18 19 DISCUSSION I. Procedural Background On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff commenced the instant action.1 The Court found the 20 21 complaint stated a cognizable claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and a 22 cognizable state-law intentional tort claim when it made the following allegations: (1) Officer 23 Arana removed Plaintiff from his lead yard attendant job in May 2015 and reassigned him to 24 sweeping and mopping stairs; withheld Plaintiff’s May 2015 pay; moved Plaintiff from his cell in 25 June 2015; and continually harassed Plaintiff from late 2014 through March 2016, all in retaliation 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint in Marin County Superior Court on April 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff served Defendants in accordance with California law on August 3, 2016, and Defendants removed this action to federal court on September 2, 2016. Dkt. No. 1. Dockets.Justia.com 1 for filing a successful grievance; (2) Sgt. Blarcom, Lt. Walls, and Capt. Evans participated in the 2 retaliation and civil rights violations when they were informed of, but did not stop, Officer 3 Arana’s retaliation and harassment; (3) Officer Mitchell participated in the retaliation and civil 4 rights violations when he covered up the other defendants’ misconduct; and (4) all defendants 5 engaged in retaliation and civil rights violations when they conducted a “massive” search of 6 Plaintiff’s cell in February 2016; moved him from his cell in February 2016; added false 7 documents to his grievances; and falsified a 129B chrono. Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 14 at 5–7. On March 19, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In the order granting summary judgment, the Court 10 identified Grievance Nos. SQ-15-1751, SQ-15-02514, and SQ-15-03254 as the grievances 11 relevant to the issues raised in this action, and concluded that none of these grievances had been 12 exhausted. These grievances raised the first three claims identified by the Court, but did not raise 13 Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendants’ actions in 2016. The Court concluded that Plaintiff had 14 not exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the first three claims because he had not 15 appealed Grievance No. SQ-15-1751 to the third and final level of review, and because he did not 16 exhaust Grievance Nos. SQ-15-02514 and SQ-15-03254 prior to filing suit. The Court further 17 concluded that Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendants’ actions in 2016 were unexhausted because 18 they had not been raised in any of these three grievances. See generally Dkt. No. 31. The Court 19 entered judgment in favor of defendants that same day. Dkt. No. 32. 20 Plaintiff appealed. Dkt. No. 33. 21 On February 6, 2020, the Ninth Circuit found that the California Department of 22 Corrections’ handling of Grievances Nos. SQ-15-1751, SQ-15-2514, and SQ-15-2839 effectively 23 made administrative remedies unavailable to Plaintiff,2 and that this Court erred in disregarding 24 Grievance No. SQ-15-2839 as unrelated to this action. Dkt. No. 41. The Ninth Circuit reversed 25 and remanded for further proceedings. Id. Accordingly, the Court REOPENS the instant action and VACATES the March 19, 2018 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff did not raise Grievance No. SQ-15-3254 on appeal. Mills v. Mitchell, slip op. no. 1815531 at 3 n.1. 2 1 related judgment. 2 II. 3 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 Vacating in Part Prior Grant of Summary Judgment As explained below, the Court VACATES in part the March 19, 2018 order granting defendants’ summary judgment motion. In accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum opinion, the Court finds that 6 Grievances Nos. SQ-15-1751, SQ-15-2514, and SQ-15-2839 effectively made administrative 7 remedies unavailable to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative 8 remedies with respect to his claims that (1) Officer Arana committed an intentional tort against 9 him and retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment when he removed Plaintiff 10 from his lead yard attendant job in May 2015 and reassigned him to sweeping and mopping stairs; 11 withheld Plaintiff’s May 2015 pay; moved Plaintiff from his cell in June 2015; and, starting in late 12 2014, continually harassed Plaintiff in retaliation for filing a successful grievance; (2) Sgt. 13 Blarcom, Lt. Walls, and Capt. Evans participated in the retaliation, civil rights violations, and 14 intentional tort when they were informed of, but did not stop, Officer Arana’s retaliation and 15 harassment; and (3) Officer Mitchell participated in the retaliation, civil rights violations, and 16 intentional tort when he covered up the other defendants’ misconduct. The Court therefore 17 VACATES the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on these claims. 18 However, none of these three grievances exhausted Plaintiff’s claims regarding 19 Defendants’ February 2016 alleged actions, i.e. his claims that Defendants retaliated against him, 20 committed civil rights violations, and committed an intentional tort when they conducted a 21 “massive” search of Plaintiff’s cell on February 3, 2016; moved him from his cell on February 4, 22 2016; and added a falsified 129B chrono to his grievances on January 25, 2016. 23 Grievance No. SQ-15-1751, submitted on June 11, 2015, alleged that Officer Arana had 24 harassed Plaintiff by inter alia illegally removing him from his job in or around June 2015; 25 withholding his May 2015 pay; and moving him to a new cell in June 2015. The last action taken 26 with respect to Grievance No. SQ-15-1751 by prison officials occurred on September 19, 2016. 27 Dkt. No. 24-1 at 33-49. 28 Grievance No. SQ-15-2514, submitted on August 26, 2015, alleged that Officer Arana had 3 1 harassed Plaintiff since May 2, 2015 in the following ways: treated Plaintiff with disrespect and 2 contempt in the presence of other inmates; instructed Plaintiff to clean areas that were the 3 responsibility of other porters; and tried to get Plaintiff to quit his job or accept another job 4 assignment. Dkt. No. 24-1 at 57–60. The grievance also alleged that Plaintiff reported these acts 5 of retaliation to Lt. Walls and Officer Arana in August 2015; and that Officer Arana and Lt. Walls 6 retaliated against Plaintiff for filing grievances by urging Plaintiff to consider going to third watch 7 or accepting a different job. The last action taken with respect to Grievance No. SQ-15-2514 by 8 prison officials occurred on June 22, 2016. Dkt. No. 24-1 at 55-62. United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Grievance No. SQ-15-2839, submitted on June 11, 2015, alleged that prison officials had 10 failed to provide him with copies of his timekeeping / pay sheets, despite repeated requests. 11 Grievance No. SQ-15-2839 also stated that Plaintiff had informed officer Arana that officer Arana 12 had, as part of a pattern of retaliation, harassment, and oppression, illegally reassigned him to 13 another job on August 27, 2015. Grievance No. SQ-15-2839 requested that Plaintiff be provided 14 with a copy of his timekeeping sheets and of his job change slip; that an audit be conducted of the 15 inmate timekeeping sheets; that Plaintiff be reinstated in his job; and that Plaintiff receive a raise 16 and back pay for May 2015. Dkt. No. 24-1 at 46-49. The last action taken with respect to 17 Grievance No. SQ-15-2839 by prison officials occurred on April 5, 2016. Dkt. No. 24-1 at 44-45. 18 The February 2016 incidents happened after Grievances Nos. SQ-15-1751, SQ-15-2514, 19 and SQ-15-2839 were submitted to prison officials. None of these grievances raise claims 20 regarding events in 2016. See generally Dkt. No. 24-1 at 33-62. Plaintiff’s appeals challenging 21 the first level and second level decisions also do not mention events in 2016. See id. 22 Accordingly, the Court does not vacate its grant of summary judgment for failure to 23 exhaust administrative remedies in favor of Defendants with respect to Plaintiff’s claims that 24 Defendants engaged in retaliation and civil rights violations when they conducted a “massive” 25 search of Plaintiff’s cell on February 3, 2016; moved Plaintiff from his cell on February 4, 2016; 26 and added a falsified 129B chrono to his grievances on January 25, 2016. Nor does the Court 27 vacate the related dismissal without prejudice of these claims. Plaintiff may re-file these claims in 28 a new action after he has exhausted his administrative remedies for these claims. 4 1 2 Referral to Settlement Proceedings The following claims remain in this action. Defendants Arana, Blarcom, Walls, Evans, 3 and Mitchell violated the First Amendment and committed an intentional tort against Plaintiff 4 when they took the following actions: (1) when Officer Arana removed Plaintiff from his lead 5 yard attendant job in May 2015 and reassigned him to sweeping and mopping stairs; withheld 6 Plaintiff’s May 2015 pay; moved Plaintiff from his cell in June 2015; and continually harassed 7 Plaintiff from late 2014 through March 2016 in retaliation for filing a successful grievance; 8 (2) when Sgt. Blarcom, Lt. Walls, and Capt. Evans were informed of, but did not stop, Officer 9 Arana’s retaliation and harassment; and (3) when Officer Mitchell covered up the other 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California III. defendants’ misconduct. The case is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for settlement 12 proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Such proceedings shall take 13 place within 120 days of the date this order is filed, or as soon thereafter as Magistrate Judge 14 Illman’s calendar will permit. Magistrate Judge Illman shall coordinate a place, time and date for 15 one or more settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their representatives and, 16 within fifteen days of the conclusion of all settlement proceedings, shall file with the Court a 17 report thereon. The Clerk is directed to serve Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this order 18 and to notify Magistrate Judge Illman that a copy of the Court file can be retrieved from the 19 Court’s electronic filing database. CONCLUSION 20 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows. 22 1. 23 judgment. 24 2. 25 26 The Court REOPENS the instant action and VACATES the March 19, 2018 The Court VACATES in part the March 19, 2018 order granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion. 3. The Court REFERS this case to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for settlement 27 proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The Clerk is directed to serve 28 Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this order and to notify Magistrate Judge Illman that a 5 1 2 copy of the Court file can be retrieved from the Court’s electronic filing database. 4. In view of the referral, further proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED. The 3 Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case until further order of the Court. If the case 4 is not settled, the Court will enter a new scheduling order for further proceedings. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 1/19/2021 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 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.
