Cramer v. Smith

Background

James A. Cramer, who was incarcerated at California State Prison Solano, sued former and present Pelican Bay State Prison employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. The remaining defendants were G.M. Ater, C.A. Galbraith, and P.D. Bush. Cramer’s remaining claim alleged that a September 1994 prison classification document falsely stated that he was a “Northern Structure (NS) dropout” and that the statement was placed in his non-confidential Central File.

The court had previously dismissed as untimely Cramer’s due-process claim seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, his negligence claim, and his retaliation claim. The due-process claim against Ater, Galbraith, and Bush was the only claim remaining in this order.

Motion and Legal Standard

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Cramer failed to exhaust available prison grievance procedures, that his complaint was untimely, that he had no protected liberty interest in the accuracy of his Central File, that he received all process required by the Constitution, and that qualified immunity applied. They also requested additional time to file their reply, which the court granted.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to properly complete available administrative remedies before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. In California’s prison system, that generally required submitting a grievance and pursuing it through three formal levels of review. A grievance had to alert prison officials to the nature of the wrong being challenged.

The Appeals

The court first considered Appeal No. 96-03332. That appeal challenged a 1996 disciplinary hearing and did not mention the “NS dropout” notation. The court held that the appeal therefore did not alert prison officials to the due-process claim concerning the notation. The court also rejected Cramer’s argument that the grievance process was unavailable because he did not yet know about the notation. The court stated that the procedures allowed an appeal within 30 days after an inmate became aware of the violation. It further found that Cramer’s speculation that prison officials intentionally concealed the notation or caused an inmate attack did not create a genuine factual dispute about whether the grievance process was available.

The court then considered Cramer’s two 2015 appeals. Appeal No. 15-01055 challenged the false gang information and sought removal of references to it from his Central File. The prison cancelled that appeal as untimely because it concerned a 1994 event. Cramer’s appeal of the cancellation was also cancelled as untimely because he submitted it more than 30 days after being notified of the first cancellation. The court held that this appeal did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

Appeal No. 15-02091 also sought removal of the false gang-related notation. The prison cancelled it for duplicating issues and exceeding the time limit. The third-level review determined that the cancellation was proper. The court held that this appeal likewise did not exhaust the claim.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Cramer’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It did not decide the defendants’ other arguments. The order terminated docket numbers 33 and 37, directed the Clerk to enter a separate judgment, and directed the Clerk to close the file. The order did not state that the claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.