Hash v. Giacomazzi

Background

Lawrence G. Hash, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. The case initially included due-process and retaliation claims arising from a disciplinary Rules Violation Report concerning a box-cutter razor blade found during a March 5, 2016 cell search.

The court previously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the due-process claim, concluding that the allegations did not establish a protected liberty interest, that Hash received the required procedural protections, and that some evidence supported the disciplinary report. The court terminated Lt. M. Bloise, Associate Warden P. Covello, and Lt. J. Lanier from the action. The remaining claim was that M. Giacomazzi, Sgt. D. Petrovic, and Lt. D. Dorsey issued, reviewed, or approved the disciplinary report in retaliation for Hash’s grievances and lawsuits.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on three grounds: failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure of the retaliation claim on the merits, and qualified immunity. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Hash also asked the court to deny or defer summary judgment until discovery disputes were resolved. The court denied that request because Hash did not provide the affidavit or declaration required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). The court also found no deficiency or bad faith in the defendants’ discovery responses.

Administrative grievances

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to properly exhaust available prison administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court examined three grievances identified by the parties.

First, grievance Log No. SQ-C-16-00464 concerned a February 4, 2016 cell search, alleged excessive force and property problems, and other conduct. The court held that it could not exhaust a retaliation claim based on the later disciplinary report because it preceded that report and did not allege that defendants retaliated by issuing, reviewing, or approving a false report. The court also rejected Hash’s argument that the grievance described a continuing violation.

Second, grievance Log No. SQ-16-00652 concerned the March 5 cell search and alleged that Giacomazzi planted a razor blade as retaliation. The court held that the grievance did not identify Petrovic or Dorsey, did not allege that the disciplinary report itself was retaliatory, and referred to a different officer as the person who issued the report. It therefore did not give prison officials adequate notice of Hash’s retaliation claim concerning disciplinary report log number 4690.

Third, grievance Log No. SQ-G-16-1828 challenged due-process errors at the disciplinary hearing. It did not allege retaliation by any defendant and therefore did not exhaust the retaliation claim.

The court rejected Hash’s argument that prison officials had decided the retaliation claim on its merits despite procedural defects. According to the court, none of the three grievances actually presented that retaliation claim, so prison officials had not decided it on the merits.

Availability of remedies

The court considered whether administrative remedies were unavailable to Hash. Hash asserted that Lt. Lamberton told him certain relief was unavailable, that he did not know all the grievance requirements, and that threats and intimidation deterred him from using the grievance process.

The court concluded that remedies remained available. It found no allegation that Lamberton told Hash he could not file a separate grievance about the retaliatory disciplinary report. It also found that Hash’s lack of knowledge of a particular regulation did not make the process unavailable, especially because the grievance form instructed him to explain his issue. Finally, even accepting Hash’s allegations about threats and intimidation, the court noted that he continued filing grievances, including forty other grievances between March 5, 2016, and February 3, 2020. The court therefore found that he had not been prevented from using the grievance system.

Ruling and disposition

The court found no genuine dispute of material fact that Hash failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies for his retaliation claim. It therefore granted M. Giacomazzi, D. Petrovic, and D. Dorsey’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the retaliation claim against those defendants for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Because the failure to exhaust barred the retaliation claim from proceeding, the court did not address the defendants’ other grounds for summary judgment, including the merits of the retaliation claim and qualified immunity. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.