Perez v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department

Background

Edwin Solorzano Perez, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the conditions of his confinement at the county jail. He alleged that he fell and injured his back while cleaning the shower, and that the defendant’s policies caused him not to receive non-slip footwear while cleaning or adequate medical care for his injuries.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Perez had not exhausted his available administrative remedies. Perez did not file an opposition, although the court had warned him about the possible consequences. The court explained that an unopposed summary-judgment motion cannot be granted solely because it is unopposed; the moving party’s evidence must still show that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Administrative-exhaustion issue

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing an action about prison conditions under § 1983 or another federal law. The court described the jail’s process as beginning with an informal oral complaint, followed by a formal written grievance and appeals through progressively higher levels of the jail’s chain of command.

The defendant presented evidence that Perez never filed a formal grievance or appeal concerning the lack of non-slip footwear or inadequate medical care for his back injury. Perez presented no contrary evidence. His original verified complaint stated that he had written “many” grievances, but it did not state that he had filed grievances or appeals about the claims at issue. The court also concluded that any belief that pursuing the process would have been futile did not excuse exhaustion.

Ruling

The court found no dispute that Perez had not pursued the available administrative remedies for his claims and concluded that no triable issue prevented summary judgment on exhaustion grounds. The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the file, and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 35.