Hoffmann v. Oliveros

Background

Kasey F. Hoffmann, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against E. Oliveros. The case alleged that Oliveros improperly screened and handled Hoffmann’s legal mail sent to the Lassen County Department of Child Support Services. The complaint asserted a federal claim and state-law claims.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided a three-level administrative appeal process. A substantive decision at the third level exhausted the available prison administrative remedies. Hoffmann filed an appeal concerning the alleged mishandling of his legal mail, but it was rejected at the second level for insufficient factual detail and for failing to identify the intended recipient. Hoffmann tried to correct the deficiencies, but the responses were rejected. He then withdrew the appeal after an August 2018 interview with Oliveros, stating that they had reached an understanding concerning staff training. The appeal was treated as withdrawn and was not reviewed at the third level.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Oliveros moved for summary judgment on the federal claim, arguing that Hoffmann had not exhausted his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving that an available administrative remedy was not exhausted. A prisoner need not exhaust remedies that were effectively unavailable, including a process that operates as a dead end or that prison officials thwart through misconduct.

The court denied the motion for summary judgment. It found that the record did not adequately address the relationship between the appeal’s June rejections and the August interview and withdrawal. The record indicated that the appeal may have been partially granted or resolved in a way that satisfied Hoffmann, in which case he would not have been required to pursue another appeal. The court also noted unresolved questions about Hoffmann’s statement that the grievance process felt like a dead end and about Oliveros’s response to that statement. Oliveros therefore failed to meet her burden of showing that Hoffmann had not exhausted available remedies. The federal claim continues.

Motion to Dismiss

Oliveros also moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, to dismiss the state-law claims. The court discussed California’s Government Claims Act, which generally requires a person seeking damages from a public entity or its employees to submit a claim to the appropriate entity before filing suit. The claimant must also allege compliance with that requirement or identify circumstances excusing compliance.

Hoffmann acknowledged that the claims previously filed with the government claims program did not concern the alleged mail tampering. He argued that he had sent a claim form on August 15, 2018, but the government claims program had not received it. The court assumed for purposes of the motion that he had sent the form to the appropriate agency and that the agency never received it. Even under that assumption, the court held that Hoffmann had not substantially complied with the Government Claims Act because a claim must be received by the appropriate agency, and presentation of the claim and agency action on it or rejection of it are conditions before a lawsuit may proceed.

The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the state-law claims. It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court ordered that the federal claim continue and dismissed the state-law claims. It directed Oliveros to file a properly supported dispositive motion within the specified period after service, unless she informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. The court also set deadlines for Hoffmann’s opposition and any reply, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and reminded Hoffmann that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of any address change. Judge James Donato signed the order on June 9, 2020.