Lopez v. Martinez

Background

Jesus Andres Lopez, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against former Correctional Training Facility Warden L. Martinez and former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary K. Allison. Lopez alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to reduce his risk of Valley Fever and failing to inform him of that risk when he arrived at the facility. He alleged that he tested positive for Valley Fever on July 19, 2020, had medical conditions that placed him at high risk for a serious case, later took Valley Fever medication, and experienced daily pain. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The court had previously determined that the amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on alleged deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference means that a prison official knew about a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk.

Summary-Judgment Motion

The defendants moved for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to complete all available administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit about prison conditions. Under the California prison health-care grievance process described in the opinion, a prisoner must pursue a health-care grievance through the institutional level and then submit it for headquarters-level review. Headquarters-level review is the final step required to exhaust the health-care process.

Lopez relied on health-care grievance number CTF HC 21000979, which sought monetary compensation for contracting Valley Fever. The grievance received an institutional-level response dated February 11, 2022. That response stated that no intervention was necessary and described Lopez’s medical evaluation, treatment, education, and continuing care. It also instructed him how to seek headquarters-level review. Lopez did not provide a headquarters-level response or other evidence showing that he submitted the grievance for that review. An inmate who helped Lopez prepare the grievance stated that all remedies had been exhausted, but the court found that this statement did not establish that the grievance reached the highest required level.

The defendants submitted records from the health-care appeals database showing that grievance number CTF HC 21000979 was closed at the institutional level and contained no indication of a headquarters-level appeal. The defendants also conceded that the grievance sufficiently concerned the deliberate-indifference claim.

Ruling

The court found that the defendants proved an available administrative remedy existed and that Lopez did not complete it. The court also found that Lopez did not show that the grievance process was unavailable, ineffective, unobtainable, excessively delayed, inadequate, or obviously futile in his circumstances. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the Eighth Amendment claim.

The court ordered that the Eighth Amendment claim be dismissed without prejudice to refiling after Lopez exhausts California’s prison administrative process. It ordered the Clerk to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot, including Lopez’s motion for appointment of counsel. Lopez’s motion for appointment of counsel was therefore denied as moot.