Cramer v. Smith

Background

James A. Cramer brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the California Department of Corrections and former employees of Pelican Bay State Prison, where he had previously been incarcerated. The court had dismissed all claims except a due process claim seeking damages based on an alleged incident in 1994, when a false notation was placed in Cramer's Central File.

Earlier ruling and appeal

In September 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Exhaustion generally requires a prisoner to use available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal lawsuit. The court identified Appeal Nos. 96-03332, 15-01055, and 15-02091 as relevant. It concluded that Cramer had not shown that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable as to Appeal No. 96-03332. Because Cramer had not made arguments concerning the 2015 appeals, the court also concluded that he had not shown that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable as to those appeals. The court entered judgment for the defendants.

Cramer appealed. In November 2022, the Ninth Circuit stated that Cramer had argued for the first time on appeal that he was not required to exhaust because his relevant administrative grievance had been improperly denied. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's ruling and remanded the case so the district court could consider, in the first instance, Cramer's argument that his relevant grievance had been improperly canceled and that he was therefore excused from exhaustion.

Ruling and next steps

Based on the Ninth Circuit's ruling, Judge Vince Chhabria ordered that the action be reopened. The court vacated its September 29, 2020 order granting the defendants' summary judgment motion and vacated the related judgment.

The court gave the defendants 60 days from the order's date to choose one of three actions: file a responsive pleading addressing Cramer's argument that his relevant 2015 appeal was improperly canceled; waive the exhaustion issue and proceed on the remaining arguments from their October 28, 2019 summary-judgment motion; or file a new dispositive motion concerning the due process damages claim. Cramer may file an opposition within 30 days after the defendants' filing, and the defendants may file a reply 14 days after Cramer's opposition.

This order reopened the case and set further proceedings; it did not decide the underlying due process claim or the exhaustion issue on the merits.