Oden v. Voong

Background

Derrick Jesus Oden, a state prisoner representing himself, sued Office of Appeals Chief M. Voong and Acting Chief R. L. Briggs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that they violated the First Amendment by obstructing his access to California prison grievance procedures. His allegations concerned grievances about a 2013 Rules Violation Report that Officer E. Santana allegedly filed falsely. Oden sought injunctive relief.

The court had previously found that Oden stated a legally sufficient claim that the defendants obstructed his access to grievance procedures. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that Oden failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and, alternatively, that they did not cause an actual injury to his court access or were protected by qualified immunity.

Administrative Appeals

California’s grievance system required a prisoner to submit an appeal and proceed through the available levels of review, including review at the director’s level. A cancellation did not exhaust administrative remedies, although a prisoner could separately appeal the cancellation.

The court identified two appeals that specifically concerned the defendants’ alleged interference with Oden’s grievance rights: LAC-X-15-01228 and LAC-X-16-02456/SVSP-L-16-03721. LAC-X-15-01228 was cancelled as untimely. The court found that it was received 46 days after the cancellation Oden was challenging had been mailed, exceeding the applicable 30-day deadline by 16 days. Oden did not appeal that cancellation.

LAC-X-16-02456/SVSP-L-16-03721 was cancelled as duplicative of LAC-X-15-01228. Oden was informed that he could challenge the cancellation through a separate appeal, but he did not do so. The court also considered Oden’s reliance on another appeal concerning the disciplinary report, but concluded that this appeal did not separately exhaust his claim against Voong and Briggs for improper screening or obstruction.

Analysis

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement. The defendants had to show that an administrative remedy was available and that Oden had not exhausted it. The burden then shifted to Oden to present evidence that the remedy was effectively unavailable to him. The ultimate burden remained with the defendants.

The court concluded that the defendants met their burden by presenting evidence that Oden’s relevant appeals were cancelled for untimeliness or duplication and never received substantive review at the director’s level. Oden did not show that prison officials had rejected his appeals for reasons inconsistent with the governing regulations. He also did not show that the grievance system was effectively unavailable or that the defendants prevented him from properly completing the process. The court therefore did not reach the merits of whether the defendants violated his access-to-courts rights.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Oden’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court dismissed the access-to-courts claim without prejudice for that failure. The court also granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice, terminated all pending motions, terminated the summary-judgment docket entry, and closed the file.