United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
F. BRENNAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel this action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants move
for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing
suit. ECF No. 42. For the reasons that follow, the motion
must be granted.
who is incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility,
filed this action on June 21, 2016, alleging Eighth Amendment
claims against defendant correctional officers at Mule Creek
State Prison (“MCSP”). ECF No. 1. Specifically,
plaintiff alleges that defendants Ruggiero and Lagge slammed
him into a wall and the ground while escorting him to a
prison yard on March 9, 2016. Id. at 8; ECF No. 11
at 3. He seeks money damages and an order that
he be transferred out of MCSP, among other injunctive relief.
Id. at 15-16.
have submitted undisputed evidence of the following facts in
support of their argument that plaintiff did not exhaust his
available administrative remedies:
1. On March 27, 2016, plaintiff submitted an inmate grievance
(aka “602”), log no. MCSP-B-16-01015, alleging
that defendants Ruggiero and Lagge had assaulted him on March
9, 2016. ECF No. 42-3, Defs.' Statement of Undisputed
Facts (hereinafter “DUF”) No. 2; ECF No. 42-4,
Decl. of M. Voong, ¶ 4; ECF No. 42-4.
2. On April 26, 2016, a prison official forwarded the appeal
directly to the second level of review, bypassing the first
level of review, after classifying the appeal as a staff
complaint. DUF No. 3; Voong Decl., ¶ 3; ECF No. 42-4 at
3. As part of the second level review, plaintiff was
interviewed concerning his allegations on May 16, 2016. DUF
No. 4; ECF No. 42-4 at 10.
4. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff composed the complaint for this
action, which was filed by the court on June 21, 2016. ECF
No. 1 at 1, 15.
5. On June 24, 2016, plaintiff's grievance was denied at
the second level of review. DUF No. 6; ECF No. 42-4 at 10-11.
6. Plaintiff submitted the grievance to the third level of
review on June 27, 2016. DUF No. 7; ECF No. 42-4 at 7.
7. Plaintiff's grievance was denied at the third level of
review on September 8, 2016. DUF No. 8; ECF No. 42-4 at 4-5.
The Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary Judgment Standards
judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Summary judgment avoids unnecessary trials in cases in which
the parties do not dispute the facts relevant to the
determination of the issues in the case, or in which there is
insufficient evidence for a jury to determine those facts in
favor of the nonmovant. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523
U.S. 574, 600 (1998); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-50 (1986); Nw. Motorcycle
Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 ...