United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court
is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 22)
based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to
who is deaf, claims that he was denied effective visitation
with his family for an eight-month period during which the
prison did not have telephones in the visiting area suitable
for the deaf.
The Parties' Evidence
support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants
assert that the following facts are undisputed:
1. On December 29, 2014, plaintiff submitted a
“Reasonable Accommodation Request, ” CDCR 1824,
log no. DVI-15-00032, requesting contact visits with his
family so he could read their lips and hear them through an
2. On March 17, 2015, plaintiff submitted a second CDCR 1824
request, log no. DVI-15-00718, appealing a February 18, 2015,
prison decision denying plaintiff's request for
“extended stay privileges.” The request was
denied and plaintiff was informed that he could appeal by
filing an inmate grievance, CDCR 602.
3. On March 24, 2015, plaintiff submitted another CDCR 1824
request, log no. DVI-15-00830, again requesting contact
visits with his family, as well as “extended stay
privileges.” On the same day, plaintiff submitted a
fourth reasonable accommodation request, log no.
DVI-15-00831, also requesting contact visits and
“extended stay privileges.” The requests were
denied as duplicative of plaintiff's March 17, 2015,
request which, at the time, was still pending.
4. On April 13, 2015, plaintiff submitted a fifth CDCR 1824
request, log no. DVI-15-00987, requesting the same relief.
5. On June 1, 2015, plaintiff submitted an inmate grievance,
CDCR 602, log no. DVI-15-01697. In his grievance, plaintiff
alleged the denial of effective communication with his
family. The grievance was rejected.
6. As of September 27, 2016, plaintiff had appealed six
inmate grievances to the third and final level of review, and
none of them related to the issues raised in plaintiff's
statement of undisputed facts is supported by the
declarations of V. Brunetti, the Appeals Coordinator at DVI,
and M. Voong, the ...