Hayes v. Martinez
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-03372
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In Hayes v. Martinez, Judge Orrick granted reconsideration and summary judgment to defendants because Hayes had not completed prison grievance procedures before suing.
Henry C. Hayes and the defendants, who were medical and correctional staff involved in the challenged prison-underwear policy and related treatment.
What happened
In Hayes v. Martinez, Henry C. Hayes alleged that prison staff violated the Eighth Amendment by forcing him to wear synthetic underwear despite his allergy. Defendants argued that Hayes had not completed the prison grievance process before filing his lawsuit.
Hayes argued that the grievance process was effectively unavailable and that his claims should not proceed to judgment. The court examined three appeals or grievances: two were completed only after Hayes filed suit, and the third was canceled before he appealed that cancellation.
Judge William H. Orrick granted defendants’ request for permission to seek reconsideration, rescinded the earlier order allowing Hayes to amend his complaint, and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court entered judgment for defendants and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Hayes v. Martinez · No. 3:19-cv-03372
- William Orrick
- Apr. 2, 2022
Background
Hayes alleged that medical and correctional staff at Pelican Bay State Prison violated his Eighth Amendment rights by requiring him to wear prison-issued underwear containing synthetic materials to which he was allergic. He alleged that wearing the underwear caused allergic reactions and that staff required him to wear it even after Dr. Martinez issued a note permitting him to use cotton underwear.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hayes had not properly exhausted available prison grievance procedures before filing his federal lawsuit. The court had initially referred the case for settlement without expressly ruling on that motion. After the case did not settle, the court directed Hayes to file an amended complaint.
Motion for Reconsideration
Defendants sought permission to ask the court to reconsider the order allowing Hayes to amend his complaint. They argued that controlling precedent required dismissal of an inmate’s action without prejudice when the inmate had not exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit, rather than allowing the inmate to continue the litigation and later amend the complaint.
The court granted defendants’ motion for leave to seek reconsideration because Ninth Circuit precedent required dismissal of an action that was filed before administrative exhaustion. The court rescinded its January 19, 2022 order directing Hayes to file an amended complaint. The court also denied Hayes’s request to declare defendants’ reconsideration motion moot.
Summary Judgment
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to properly complete available administrative remedies before filing a federal action concerning prison conditions. The court measured exhaustion as of the time Hayes filed his complaint, which was June 5, 2019 under the prison-mailbox rule.
The court found that Appeal 849 was not exhausted until August 13, 2019, more than two months after Hayes filed suit. Healthcare Grievance 174 was not exhausted until September 25, 2019, also after filing. The court rejected Hayes’s argument that the process was unavailable because of pressure or management intervention, finding that his explanation was conclusory and unsupported by specific threats or intimidation.
The court also found Appeal 1072 unexhausted. Prison officials had rejected it for missing documentation, later canceled it as duplicative, and informed Hayes that he could appeal the cancellation. Hayes did not appeal the cancellation, and the court found that the cancellation did not make the administrative process unavailable.
Ruling and Effect
The court held that Hayes had not exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit. It granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, entered judgment in defendants’ favor, directed the clerk to terminate the specified motions, and closed the file. The opinion resolved the case on exhaustion and did not decide whether the alleged underwear requirement violated the Eighth Amendment.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.