(PC) Molina v. Holland
1:15-cv-01260
E.D. Cal.Mar 2, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Mario Molina, a pro se state prisoner, alleges that on Dec. 14, 2013 C/O Rivera sprayed O.C. at point‑blank range, injuring his right eye; staff refused timely decontamination and delayed adequate medical care, resulting in repeated failed corneal transplants and permanent impairment.
- Plaintiff claims excessive force (Eighth Amendment), deliberate indifference (Rivera and Stanley), and retaliation (Rivera, Stanley, Holland, Gutierrez, Jones) after he complained and participated in an Internal Affairs interview; he was placed in Administrative Segregation for ~14 months.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Molina failed to exhaust administrative remedies; records showed certain appeals screened out or not logged, and IATS reflected no 2014 appeals by Molina.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact about whether Molina timely filed grievances and whether the prison processed them (including testimony that a 602 was filed Jan. 6, 2014 and that staff told him to stop complaining).
- At an Albino evidentiary hearing, Molina and corroborating inmates testified they assisted and observed submission of grievances; Appeals staff testified no record of a processed 2014 appeal but acknowledged screened‑out notices and that staff could print missing committee forms (128G) on request.
- The court recommended denying defendants’ summary judgment motion, deeming Molina to have exhausted available administrative remedies because prison staff failed to process grievances and screening requirements (e.g., 128G) effectively made the remedy unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Molina exhausted available administrative remedies under the PLRA | Molina says he timely filed a 602 about the pepper‑spray incident (Jan. 6, 2014), followed up when it was ‘lost,’ and later filed/adhered to instructions but prison failed to process appeals | Defendants say IATS shows no 2014 appeals, relevant appeals were untimely, screened out for missing attachments, and Molina never resubmitted properly | Genuine factual disputes; recommended denial of summary judgment and Molina deemed to have exhausted because prison improperly failed to process grievances and screening requirements made remedies unavailable |
| Whether screening requirements (e.g., attaching Form 128G) legitimately blocked exhaustion | Molina contends he lacked access to property and legal materials while in Ad‑Seg and sought help; he alleges Appeals Office could have printed required forms but did not timely process | Defendants relied on screen‑out notices requiring attachments and contend Molina failed to supply them | Court found screening requirement and failure to assist prevented exhaustion; Appeals Office could print 128G and Molina showed attempts to comply; remedy unavailable |
| Whether retaliation/ intimidation by staff rendered grievance process unavailable | Molina testified guards threatened him and told him not to pursue complaints; corroborating witnesses described retaliation at facility | Defendants disputed some specifics and pointed to record inconsistencies (cell numbers, dates) | Court credited Molina’s testimony and corroboration enough to find intimidation and misprocessing contributed to unavailability of remedies |
| Appropriateness of evidentiary hearing and summary judgment disposition | Molina sought to present witnesses and evidence showing appeals were lost/ignored; requested expert to review video (later) | Defendants sought summary judgment on exhaustion based on records; contested Molina’s evidence | Court held hearing was appropriate; recommended denying summary judgment and denied Molina’s expert motion as moot (without prejudice) since exhaustion recommendation made expert unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir.) (describing California three‑level grievance process)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. en banc) (summary judgment burden‑shifting in PLRA exhaustion motions; evidentiary hearing may be required)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (prisoners must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative remedies are unavailable when the process is a dead end, is opaque, or administrators thwart use by machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation)
- Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir.) (when officials improperly fail to process a grievance, the prisoner is deemed to have exhausted)