Humphreys v. Hatton

Background

Donald R. Humphreys, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. His second amended complaint alleged that correctional officers Baldin, Maldonald, Cuevas, and Lipatore stole his mail, ordered other officers not to distribute it, prevented him from receiving legal mail, and retaliated against him for filing lawsuits against Officer Baldin by withholding his mail.

The court screened the second amended complaint and ordered Humphreys to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Humphreys submitted exhibits and a declaration. The exhibits showed that he filed Grievance No. CTF-19-00286 on January 16, 2019, alleging that the officers had been stealing his mail. The grievance received a second-level response that granted it in part because an investigation was conducted, but otherwise denied it because correctional staff had not violated California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation policy. Humphreys appealed to the third level, but that appeal was rejected on May 7, 2019, because it lacked a required supporting document. The record did not show that he resubmitted the appeal or received a final third-level decision.

Legal standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing an action about prison conditions under § 1983. The court explained that California’s prison grievance system has three review levels and that an inmate exhausts the process by obtaining a decision at each level. A cancellation or rejection does not exhaust administrative remedies.

Humphreys filed his second amended complaint on February 22, 2019. By that date, he had received only a second-level response to his grievance. The court assumed, without deciding, that the grievance concerned some or all of the same claims raised in the second amended complaint. Because Humphreys had not obtained a third-level decision before filing, the court concluded that he had not exhausted the required administrative remedies.

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, without prejudice to filing a new, separate action after completing exhaustion for the claims raised in the second amended complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file.