Farias v. Lopez

Background

Jorge Alberto Farias, a state prisoner, filed this self-represented civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court later identified cognizable claims against C. Lopez, Jose Gutierrez-Aparicio, P. Barrera-Negrete, A. Cortina, and D. Ear. The opinion describes an excessive-force claim arising from an August 22, 2020 cell search and claims concerning Farias’s ability to obtain assistance and file a prison grievance. Farias was represented by counsel when he opposed this motion.

The defendants’ first summary-judgment motion addressed only exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law generally requires a prisoner to complete available prison administrative remedies before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. The defendants argued that Farias filed his grievance about the alleged excessive force 174 days after the incident, even though the applicable prison regulation required a written grievance within 30 days. They also argued that Farias never filed a grievance about his other claims.

Farias argued that the applicable rules and California executive orders gave him more time, that the filing period did not begin until January 25, 2021, and that his disability and placement in administrative segregation made the grievance process effectively unavailable. He also argued that exhaustion should not be required and requested additional time to add evidence or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing concerning exhaustion.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated Farias’s request for additional time as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). The court denied that request because Farias did not provide an affidavit or declaration explaining why he could not present essential facts, identify facts that would defeat summary judgment, or show that he had diligently pursued discovery. The court also found an evidentiary hearing unnecessary because there was no genuine dispute of material fact.

The court held that Farias’s excessive-force grievance was untimely. The regulations in effect when the alleged violations occurred gave inmates 30 days to submit a written grievance, not the longer period Farias asserted. The court also concluded that the cited executive orders did not extend the deadline for inmate grievances under the applicable regulation.

The court rejected Farias’s argument that the deadline began when he learned how to file a grievance. Under the applicable regulation, discovery occurred when he knew or reasonably should have known of the adverse action. Because Farias did not claim that he was unaware of the August 22, 2020 incident, the filing period began that day.

The court then considered whether the grievance process was effectively unavailable. It explained that a remedy may be unavailable when it is a dead end, too confusing to use, or blocked by prison officials through interference, deception, or intimidation. The court found evidence that a developmental-disability-program officer was available to assist Farias during the relevant 30-day period and had previously helped him with grievance forms. Farias’s evidence could show that he did not know how to file the form, but it did not show that the process was a dead end, too confusing to use, or blocked by prison officials. The court therefore found no genuine dispute of material fact and concluded that the grievance process was available.

Finally, the court held that exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is mandatory and cannot be excused at the district court’s discretion. It found no legal basis to excuse Farias’s failure to exhaust.

Disposition

The court denied Farias’s request for additional time to supplement the record. It found an evidentiary hearing unnecessary and granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Exhaustion. The order did not state an additional disposition using the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”