(PC) Hill v. Rackley, 2:13-cv-00828

Plaintiff Derrick Hill, a state prisoner, alleges he was placed on modified programming after an April 22, 2012 melee and that the restrictions were applied to black and white inmates based solely on race, violating Equal Protection and Eighth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff filed a CDC-602 inmate appeal (DVI-X-12-1809) complaining he was disciplined for a melee he did not participate in and seeking compensation for missed work/time.
The appeal was partially granted at the first and second levels (compensation recorded as "S" time; modified program ultimately ended May 15, 2012), and was denied at the third (Director) level for insufficient supporting evidence.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Hill failed to exhaust administrative remedies because his grievance did not comply with California regulations requiring identification of involved staff and did not list all program losses he later alleged.
Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The magistrate judge found undisputed evidence that Hill’s grievance did not name any staff or meet the 2011 regulation’s required detail and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hill exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA	Hill contends he filed and pursued a CDC-602 appeal through three levels, showing exhaustion	Defendants contend the CDC-602 was procedurally deficient under Title 15 (did not identify staff or list all losses), so Hill did not properly exhaust	Court: Hill failed to comply with procedural requirements; exhaustion not shown; summary judgment recommended for defendants
Whether the 2011 Title 15 grievance requirements alter exhaustion notice standards	Hill relies on his appeal’s description of being punished and missed work to show notice	Defendants argue the 2011 regs require listing staff and specific facts; Hill’s appeal lacked those details	Court: 2011 regs apply; grievance insufficient because it did not identify staff or all alleged losses
Whether summary judgment is proper on exhaustion when facts undisputed	Hill produced grievance and complaint but offered no opposing evidence	Defendants met the low initial burden by showing existence of grievance procedure Hill didn’t follow	Court: Undisputed evidence viewed for plaintiff shows failure to exhaust; summary judgment appropriate
Remedy for failure to exhaust	Hill implicitly seeks to proceed on merits after appeal process	Defendants seek dismissal	Court: Recommend dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment party burden and procedure)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standard; inferences and genuine dispute)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue for trial)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA requires compliance with procedural rules for exhaustion)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (exhaustion required before suit under PLRA)
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (motion for summary judgment proper for exhaustion; defendant’s low initial burden)
Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (grievance satisfies exhaustion if it alerts prison to the nature of the wrong)
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (discussing California grievance rules and exhaustion post-reg changes)