Prado v. Sullivan

Background

Luis Prado, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute for claims against state actors. He alleged that on or about November 30, 2020, Officer T. Sullivan ordered him to accept a cellmate from another yard. Prado tried to refuse because he was concerned about COVID-19 and inmates from that yard had tested positive. He alleged that the cellmate had a runny nose and coughed frequently, and that Prado tested positive for COVID-19 on or about December 5, 2020. He further alleged continuing chest pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, and confusion.

Prado’s claim was based on the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler previously found that, when read liberally, the complaint stated a valid Eighth Amendment claim based on exposure to COVID-19. The case was later reassigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

Exhaustion of prison remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to complete available prison grievance procedures before filing a lawsuit about prison conditions. The court explained that proper exhaustion requires following the prison’s procedures, including applicable deadlines and appeals.

Seven months after Prado tested positive for COVID-19, he submitted grievance log number 000000137705 to the facility’s Office of Grievances. The grievance complained that he had been forced to accept a cellmate and later contracted COVID-19, but it did not name Sullivan. The facility divided the grievance into two claims. It exhausted the second claim, concerning medical issues related to COVID-19, and resolved it without intervention. It rejected the first claim, concerning exposure to COVID-19, because Prado had not submitted it within the required 30-day period.

The facility gave Prado written notice that he could appeal the rejection of the first claim to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Appeals. It also told him not to resubmit the claim to the facility. Prado did not appeal the rejection and instead filed this lawsuit.

Court’s analysis

Sullivan moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding a claim without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial. Sullivan argued that Prado failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. Sullivan also raised alternative arguments concerning the lack of evidence supporting deliberate indifference and causation and qualified immunity, but the court did not reach those arguments.

The court held that Sullivan met her burden of showing that an available administrative remedy existed and that Prado failed to complete it. The written grievance response explained that the first claim was untimely and described the steps Prado could take to appeal the rejection. The court found no evidence that prison officials were unable or unwilling to provide relief, that the grievance system was too confusing to use, or that officials had prevented Prado from using it.

Prado argued that the grievance process was unavailable because he faced an imminent danger of COVID-19 infection and because the process could not prevent or remedy Sullivan’s alleged deliberate indifference. The court found these statements conclusory. It ruled that Prado had not provided evidence explaining how the grievance process was unavailable to him or showing that prison officials had obstructed his efforts to use it. Because the evidence showed that Prado failed to exhaust available remedies, the court granted summary judgment to Sullivan.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Sullivan’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Prado failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. Under Ninth Circuit law, the court DISMISSED without prejudice Prado’s Eighth Amendment claim. The court DENIED as moot Prado’s request for an evidentiary hearing and Sullivan’s motion to strike Prado’s surreply. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the file.