Barraillier v. Muniz

Background

Mario F. Barraillier alleged that, on March 8, 2018, while he was in the medical unit at Salinas Valley State Prison, Officers Ramirez and Alvarez used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also alleged that Officers Bock, Virrueta, Sanchez, and Lopez failed to intervene. He asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, a procedure allowing judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the outcome. They argued that Barraillier had not exhausted the available prison grievance process before filing his federal claims and had not complied with California’s requirement for presenting claims against a state entity or employee before filing state tort claims. Barraillier did not oppose the motion or request more time to do so.

Federal Claims

The court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act required Barraillier to properly complete all available levels of the prison grievance process, including compliance with deadlines and other procedural requirements. His grievance concerning the alleged March 8 incident reached the second level, but his appeal to the third level was rejected because he did not submit the original appeal form. The court found no evidence that he resubmitted the appeal after the rejection. Because a rejected appeal did not exhaust administrative remedies, the court concluded that Barraillier had not exhausted the claims raised in that grievance.

The court also found that Barraillier’s separate request for a copy of the appeal marked “Treat as Original” did not exhaust his claims. That request sought a copy rather than review of the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims, and the request was repeatedly rejected for procedural reasons, including bypassing lower levels of review. The court noted that Barraillier made efforts to pursue the grievance process but did not follow the stated requirements. It nevertheless granted summary judgment because defendants’ evidence supported their motion and did not reveal a genuine factual dispute.

State Claims

The court held that California law required Barraillier to present his personal-injury claims to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board before filing suit. Defendants submitted evidence that the relevant government-claims records showed no claim filed by Barraillier from January 1, 2018, through October 20, 2020. Barraillier submitted no evidence showing that he satisfied this requirement. The court therefore granted summary judgment for defendants on the state-law claims.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It entered judgment in defendants’ favor, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, and closed the file.