Blueford v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Background

Javar Lester Blueford brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The remaining claims concerned the denial of his request for kosher meals while detained at Salinas Valley State Prison. The opinion states that all other claims had been dismissed during initial screening.

On January 12, 2018, Blueford requested access to the kosher meal program. After an interview, a chaplain and the Religious Review Committee determined that the pork-free regular diet was sufficient and denied the request. Neither defendant, Kelly Green or Frost, served on that committee.

Blueford later filed a prison appeal. Green denied the first-level appeal. Frost interviewed Blueford during the second-level appeal, but a different, non-defendant person denied that appeal. The parties disputed what Blueford told Frost during the interview. Blueford then submitted a third-level appeal, which was rejected as incomplete because he had not signed and dated it or included his earlier religious-diet request form. He did not resubmit it, although he had been told that he could do so.

Court’s analysis

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to fully use available prison administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit challenging prison conditions. The court found that the prison appeals process was available to Blueford and that he failed to complete it. The court rejected his explanation that he could not resubmit the appeal because he no longer had the required form. It noted that he did not describe efforts to obtain the form or ask his new prison how to obtain a copy, and that he acknowledged knowing he could resubmit the appeal.

The court therefore held that defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court separately held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity even if Blueford had fully exhausted his claim. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The court reasoned that Green and Frost were involved only in the appeals process, that there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance system, and that Blueford had not shown that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Docket No. 22, and ordered the clerk to close the file. The court did not address defendants’ Eleventh Amendment argument.