Ingram v. Bolanos
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-02457
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Ingram v. Bolanos, Judge Orrick granted summary judgment to Sheriff Bolanos because Ingram neither exhausted his mail claim nor showed the alleged policy existed.
Sirvontre Ingram’s claim against Carlos G. Bolanos concerning an alleged policy stopping prisoners from receiving mail was resolved in Bolanos’s favor.
What happened
In Ingram v. Bolanos, Sirvontre Ingram claimed that the San Mateo County Sheriff instituted a policy in April 2021 stopping prisoners from receiving any mail, violating his free-speech rights. Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos argued that Ingram had not properly used the jail’s grievance process and that no such policy existed. Ingram did not oppose the motion.
The court found that Ingram’s grievances did not properly raise the specific claim that a policy stopped all incoming mail. The court also considered the claim’s merits and found that Ingram offered no evidence that the alleged full-stop policy had been created or implemented. Delays in accessing mail through electronic tablets did not establish that all mail had been stopped.
Judge William H. Orrick granted Bolanos’s motion for summary judgment, entered judgment for Bolanos, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions, and closed the file.
The detailed version
- Ingram v. Bolanos · No. 3:22-cv-02457
- William Orrick
- May 3, 2024
Background
Sirvontre Ingram brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Carlos G. Bolanos, identified in the opinion as the San Mateo County Sheriff. Ingram alleged that jailors at the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office instituted a policy in April 2021 that stopped prisoners from receiving all incoming mail, violating his First Amendment rights. Bolanos moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ingram failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and could not show that the alleged policy existed. The motion was unopposed because Ingram filed no response.
Exhaustion ruling
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to properly complete available administrative grievance procedures before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. The court concluded that Bolanos showed an administrative remedy was available because Ingram filed eight grievances while in custody, but that Ingram did not exhaust the claim presented in this lawsuit.
The court identified only one grievance that might have been relevant: a June 5, 2021 grievance concerning mail tampering, limits on the amount of mail, and a new mail system. The court found that this grievance complained about alleged violations of existing mail rules and did not allege that a new policy had stopped all mail. Because Ingram’s complaint alleged that the full-stop policy was instituted in April, and because he did not show a genuine dispute of material fact, the court granted Bolanos’s motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.
Merits ruling
The court also decided the merits in the alternative. It found that, even if Ingram had exhausted his administrative remedies, he had not shown that the alleged full-stop policy was ever created or implemented. Bolanos presented evidence that no such policy appeared in the relevant Policy and Procedures Manual and that no such policy was created or implemented. Ingram’s unopposed supposition was not evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact. The court further found that delays in accessing mail through electronic tablets did not establish that mail had been completely stopped.
Disposition
The court granted Bolanos’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of Bolanos, and close the file.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.