Ward v. Koenig

Background

Trevillion Ward filed this pro se civil-rights action against former Correctional Training Facility warden Craig Koenig. Ward alleged that Koenig authorized a July 20, 2020 raid, called Operation Akili, that targeted African American inmates despite known COVID-19 risks. Ward alleged that the raid and other conditions contributed to the spread of COVID-19, that he contracted COVID-19 twice, and that he later developed COVID-19-related pneumonia and continuing health effects.

The court had previously found that Ward’s factual allegations stated cognizable claims for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs and safety under the Eighth Amendment, as well as claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision under state law. The operative complaint sought a release order, a transfer order, a declaration that Koenig was liable, damages, and civil penalties.

Administrative Grievances

Ward submitted two grievances. Grievance No. 24015, filed on July 31, 2020, complained about staff members not wearing masks, the July 20 raid on Black inmates, prison conditions that made social distancing impossible, and the risk of COVID-19 infection. Ward requested COVID-19 testing, release, and temporary single-cell housing. The grievance was denied at the institutional level. Ward appealed, and the Office of Appeals later issued a “time expired” decision.

Grievance No. HC2000628, filed on August 3, 2020, requested immediate release because of COVID-19 risks and Ward’s health conditions. The institutional response denied the requested relief and described CDCR’s medical-care and COVID-19 risk-assessment processes. Ward appealed, and the headquarters-level response denied expedited processing and release while reporting that his COVID-19 risk score was 4.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Koenig moved for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner generally must complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing an action about prison conditions. Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, meaning Koenig had the burden to show both that an administrative remedy was available and that Ward did not use it. At the summary-judgment stage, the court had to view disputed facts in Ward’s favor.

Koenig argued that the grievances did not exhaust Ward’s claims because they did not identify Koenig or allege that he approved a raid that would spread COVID-19. Ward argued that he complied with the applicable regulations by providing all information known and available to him when he filed the grievances. Ward stated that he did not learn about Koenig’s alleged involvement until March 2021, after both grievances had completed the review process. Koenig did not dispute that assertion and did not file a reply brief.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court held that Ward had exhausted the claims raised in this action. It found that the two grievances addressed the substance of those claims: that correctional officials allowed or authorized conduct they knew could spread COVID-19, including the July 2020 raid. The court also found that Ward had provided the information known and available to him when he filed the grievances. Because the record did not show that Ward knew of Koenig’s alleged involvement before the grievance process ended, Ward’s failure to name Koenig did not establish failure to exhaust.

The court further stated that the grievances contained enough information to allow prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures. It added that, even if the grievances had not followed a procedural rule, they were exhausted because prison officials decided them on the merits at all available levels of review.

The court DENIED Koenig’s motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court did not decide the merits of Ward’s underlying claims in this order. It ordered Koenig to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion addressing the merits no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless he informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. Ward’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and Koenig’s reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held on the motion and required that any summary-judgment motion be accompanied by the required notice explaining the process to Ward.