(PC) Matlock v. Kern County

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Case No. 1:19-cv-01368-JLT-CDB (PC)

11 RICHARD A. MATLOCK,

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS

12 Plaintiff, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

13 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14 DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., (Docs. 54, 64)

15 Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE

JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT

16

30-DAY DEADLINE

17

18 Richard A. Matlock filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to hold Defendants

19 liable for failure to protect him from an assault by another inmate in violation of the Fourteenth

20 Amendment. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

21 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

23 On August 1, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s

24 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff failed to respond despite multiple

25 opportunities to do so. On April 10, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and

26 recommendations deeming Defendants’ motion for summary judgment unopposed and

27 recommending the Court grant the motion. (Doc. 64.)

28 On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and

1 recommendations. (Doc. 65.) In his objections, Plaintiff admits he never filed an administrative

2 complaint, but he argues the administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. (Id.)

3 The Court determined the information contained in Plaintiff’s objections may be material to the

4 exhaustion analysis. (Doc. 66.) However, because the objections were not signed under perjury,

5 they did not constitute evidence the Court could consider on summary judgment. Therefore, the

6 Court held the findings and recommendations in abeyance and granted Plaintiff leave to

7 supplement the record with a sworn declaration. The Court further granted Defendants leave to

8 respond to any declaration filed by Plaintiff. (Id.)

9 Plaintiff timely filed a sworn declaration in opposition to Defendants’ motion for

10 summary judgment. (Doc. 67.) Plaintiff indicates he signed an acknowledgement of grievance

11 procedure upon his arrival at Lerdo Max-Medium Facility. Following the attack by another

12 inmate, Plaintiff requested an administrative remedy1 from Deputy Woosely, who responded that

13 someone should have already talked to Plaintiff. However, Woosely did not provide Plaintiff

14 with the administrative remedy requested. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts he asked other deputies for

15 I-200 grievance forms. (Id. at 3.) They also stated they would send someone to talk to Plaintiff

16 about it, but none of these deputies or any other staff provided the I-200 forms. Thus, Plaintiff

17 argues prison staff intentionally and deliberately thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts through

18 misrepresentations and making it physically impossible for Plaintiff to take advantage of the

19 grievance process. Id.

20 Plaintiff further asserts the grievance process would not have prevented the attack

21 anyway because the I-200 form states: “Grievable conditions of confinement may include, but

22 are not limited to: Medical and or [sic] mental health care, classification action, disciplinary

23 actions, food, clothing and bedding.” (Id.) From this, Plaintiff believed that nothing in the form

24 states he could “grieve after the fact of an assault,” that there were no cameras monitoring the

25 pods, and no staff was on the pod during the assault. Plaintiff also determined that the grievance

26 policy could not have prevented the attack. (Id.)

27 In their response, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s declaration is self-defeating and fails to

28

1 effectively oppose their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 68 at 2.) Defendants maintain that

2 the form’s language (i.e., the form’s indication that grievable conditions of confinement “include

3 but are not limited to” certain subjects) undercuts Plaintiff’s assertion of futility and does not

4 raise a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment. (Doc. 67.) Defendants argue they have

5 met their burden to show (1) the existence of an available remedy and (2) Plaintiff’s failure to

6 exhaust that remedy. (Id.) Therefore, the grievance process was available, and Plaintiff’s

7 submission of a grievance would not have been futile. Defendants argue: “It does not matter

8 whether Plaintiff believes filling out the grievance form would have changed the situation, the

9 requirement is that he simply fill out the form and let the administrative process finish, prior to

10 filing a lawsuit.” (Id.) However, Defendants do not address Plaintiff’s allegation that he

11 requested a grievance form from deputies and staff but was never provided one.

12 II. DISCUSSION

13 The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that the

14 defendant must plead and prove. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204, 216 (2007). The defendant

15 bears the burden of producing evidence that proves a failure to exhaust. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d

16 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). On a motion for summary judgment, the defendant bears the initial

17 burden of proving (1) the existence of an available administrative remedy, and (2) the plaintiff

18 failed to exhaust that remedy. Id. at 1172. If the defendant makes this showing, the burden shifts

19 to the prisoner to present “evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that

20 made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to

21 him.” Id. (citing Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 778 n.5 (9th Cir. 1996)).

22 A remedy is available if it “capable of use for the accomplishment of a purpose” or “is

23 accessible or may be obtained.” Eaton v. Blewett, 50 F.4th 1240, 1245 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting

24 Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642 (2016)). The Supreme Court has recognized three circumstances

25 in which administrative remedies are effectively unavailable: (1) when the grievance system

26 “operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any

27 relief to aggrieved inmates”; (2) when the system is “so opaque that it becomes, practically

28 speaking, incapable of use”; and (3) “when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking

1 advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Id.

2 Where a prisoner does not have access to necessary forms to file a grievance and does not have

3 the ability to complete them during the filing period, no remedy is available to exhaust. Marella v.

4 Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2009); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1177 (concluding

5 administrative remedy was unavailable where he repeatedly requested inmate complaint forms,

6 but they were never provided, nor was the plaintiff informed he could simply write his complaint

7 on a piece of paper); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding an inmate

8 was excused from the exhaustion requirement where he was misinformed by the Warden about

9 needing a Program Statement to exhaust administrative remedies, and inmate took reasonable and

10 appropriate steps to obtain it).

11 Plaintiff has submitted his sworn statement indicating that he repeatedly asked for

12 grievance forms to complain about the conditions of confinement, which allowed the violent

13 attack to occur. He was repeatedly informed that someone would talk about his grievance and

14 bring him the forms, but this never occurred. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff has met his

15 burden to show the existing remedies were effectively unavailable. Defendants have not

16 provided evidence to refute this testimony or, even, addressed this evidence in argument.

17 Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment based on non-exhaustion of

18 administrative remedies.

19 III. JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT

20 The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines established by the Court’s scheduling

21 order of May 3, 2022, have lapsed. (Doc. 50.) The parties’ previously filed scheduling and

22 discovery statements indicate they are willing to participate in a settlement conference; Plaintiff

23 has propounded requests for production of documents but received no responses from

24 Defendants; and Defendants intend to file a motion for summary judgment based qualified

25 immunity. (Docs. 48, 49.)

26 The parties are ordered to meet and confer and to file a joint scheduling report within 30

27 days from the date of service of this order. The parties’ report shall include proposed dates for a

28 settlement conference, discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, and proposed dates for

1 | pretrial conference and trial. The parties may also report any other issues or matters they wish to

2 | bring to the Court’s attention.

3 | IV. CONCLUSION

4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this Court has conducted

5 | ade novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's

6 | objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

7 || proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

8 1. The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the findings and recommendations filed on

9 April 10, 2023, (Doc. 64).

10 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 54), is DENIED.

11 3. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint scheduling report within 30 days

12 from the date of service of this Order.

13 4. This case is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

14

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 | Dated: _ August 29, 2023 Charis [Tourn

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28