Patkins v. Ferguson

Background

David C. Patkins, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Ferguson. Patkins alleged that Ferguson, identified as a correctional supervising cook, retaliated against him after Patkins said on October 14, 2017, “please stop harassing me or I’m going to file a complaint.”

Patkins alleged multiple retaliatory acts, including that Ferguson refused to return his prison ID after telling him to leave the culinary area; issued false rules-violation reports; assigned him the worst or no jobs; blocked access to his work station; arranged inspections of his work areas; called him a thief and searched him; issued a negative evaluation; influenced other cooks against him; interfered with his work; sought his removal from the culinary assignment; and searched and discarded his property.

Patkins filed six inmate appeals concerning Ferguson during the relevant period. The appeals addressed various alleged false reports, searches, work-area inspections, accusations that Patkins was a thief, the alleged February 2 and February 5 incidents, and the removal of Patkins’ culinary job. The opinion states that the appeals received decisions at the highest level necessary to exhaust administrative remedies for the issues they described.

Summary judgment and exhaustion requirement

Summary judgment is a procedure allowing a court to rule without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Ferguson sought summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, an affirmative defense requiring a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal action about prison conditions.

The court explained that California’s grievance regulations required a prisoner to identify involved staff members, describe their involvement, and state all facts known and available about the issue being appealed. The regulations also provided that later-added issues, information, or people were not considered exhausted if they were absent from the original appeal.

Acts the court found exhausted

Ferguson argued that Patkins had not exhausted four parts of his retaliation claim: the refusal to return Patkins’ ID, blocking access to his work station, enlisting kitchen staff to inspect his work areas, and calling him a thief.

The court denied summary judgment as to the alleged inspections of Patkins’ work areas, identified as retaliatory act #5. Although the relevant appeal did not specifically say that Ferguson had enlisted another supervisor to conduct the raid, it stated that Ferguson and another staff member had raided Patkins’ work area. The court concluded that this was enough to alert prison officials to Ferguson’s involvement.

The court also denied summary judgment as to the allegation that Ferguson called Patkins a thief, identified as retaliatory act #6. The court found that two appeals adequately described that allegation and identified Ferguson’s involvement.

Acts the court found unexhausted

The court granted summary judgment as to retaliatory act #1, the alleged refusal to return Patkins’ ID after Ferguson told him to leave the culinary area. Patkins did not mention that incident in any first-level inmate appeal.

The court also granted summary judgment as to retaliatory act #4, the allegation that Ferguson blocked Patkins’ access to perform his work duties on October 20, 2017. Patkins likewise did not mention that incident in any first-level appeal.

The court rejected Patkins’ arguments that a general reference to retaliation exhausted every alleged retaliatory act, or that mentioning an act later in the grievance process cured its omission from the original appeal. It also rejected the argument that the acts were exhausted because prison officials did not reject the appeals for adding details. The court concluded that the applicable regulations required the specific acts to be described in the original appeal.

Disposition

The court held that Ferguson was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the exhaustion defense as to retaliatory acts #1 and #4. It dismissed those two portions of the retaliation claim without prejudice, meaning the opinion expressly allowed Patkins to file a new action concerning them if he properly exhausted the administrative remedies.

The court denied Ferguson’s motion for summary judgment as to retaliatory acts #5 and #6 and denied it in all other respects. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of the retaliation allegations. Instead, it set deadlines for Ferguson to file either a merits summary-judgment motion or a notice that he would not file one, followed by deadlines for Patkins’ opposition and Ferguson’s reply.