Calderon v. Koenig
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-07949
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Calderon v. Koenig, Judge Gilliam granted defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the action without prejudice because Calderon had not exhausted prison grievance remedies.
Javier Calderon’s Eighth Amendment safety claim against Warden Koenig and Captain C. Freeman was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants received judgment in their favor.
What happened
In Calderon v. Koenig, Javier Calderon, a prisoner representing himself, claimed that Warden Koenig and Captain Freeman failed to protect him from a known risk of harm during an August 5, 2018 prison riot. He alleged that the attack caused serious and permanent injuries.
The defendants asked for summary judgment because Calderon had not properly completed the prison’s grievance process for his safety claim. The court found that the grievance Calderon relied on was a healthcare grievance, while prison officials had told him that complaints about custody staff and protection from the riot had to be raised through the separate custody grievance process. Calderon did not file that required custody grievance, and he did not oppose the motion.
The court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling after exhaustion. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered judgment for the defendants and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Calderon v. Koenig · No. 4:19-cv-07949
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 19, 2021
Background
Javier Calderon, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Warden Koenig and Captain C. Freeman failed to take reasonable steps to protect him from a known excessive risk to his safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Calderon alleged that he was attacked during an August 5, 2018 riot and suffered vision loss, dizziness, hearing loss, headaches, ringing in his ears, neck and back pain, and psychological and emotional trauma.
The defendants moved for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Summary judgment is a procedure for entering judgment when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Calderon did not file an opposition, and the deadline had passed.
Administrative Grievances
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner generally may not bring a prison-conditions action under § 1983 until available administrative remedies have been properly exhausted. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s 2018–2019 procedures separated custody grievances from healthcare grievances. A custody grievance required review through three levels, while a healthcare grievance proceeded through institutional and headquarters review.
Calderon identified Healthcare Grievance No. CTF-HC-19000329 as exhausting his Eighth Amendment safety claim. That grievance sought monetary compensation and referred to allegations of failure to intervene, staging, failure to protect, and deliberate indifference. Prison officials responded that healthcare staff lacked jurisdiction over custody staff and directed Calderon to use the appropriate custody grievance process.
The other grievances Calderon referenced did not establish exhaustion of this claim. Grievance No. CTF-S-18-02452 was submitted by another inmate, and the opinion states that Calderon was not associated with it. Group Grievance No. CTF-S-18-02454 was submitted by another inmate and joined by 27 inmates, but Calderon did not join it. Healthcare Grievance No. CTF-HC-18001410 concerned orthopedic boots rather than the alleged failure to protect Calderon during the riot.
Court’s Analysis
The court presumed, viewing the record in Calderon’s favor, that he attempted to raise his Eighth Amendment claim in Healthcare Grievance No. CTF-HC-19000329. But the court held that the grievance did not properly exhaust the claim because the prison’s rules required Calderon to raise custody-related complaints through the custody grievance process. The healthcare grievance responses expressly informed him that custody issues could not be handled through that process and directed him to file a separate custody grievance.
Because Calderon did not file a custody grievance raising his Eighth Amendment safety claim, the court found that he failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies.
Disposition
The court GRANTED defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust. It DISMISSED the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, without prejudice to refiling once administrative remedies are exhausted. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for defendants against Calderon and close the file.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.