(PC) Villareal v. County of Fresno
1:15-cv-01410-ADA-EPG
E.D. Cal.Jun 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Elaine K. Villareal, a pro se state prisoner, sued the County of Fresno under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment unconstitutional conditions at Fresno County Jail (mold, falling walls, pests, lack of programming/contact visits) and filed suit on September 17, 2015.
- Defendant moved to dismiss (converted to summary judgment) arguing Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies; Defendant produced jail grievance records showing four grievances around September 2015 and that Plaintiff did not complete the appeal process before filing suit.
- Plaintiff submitted sworn statements and declarations from other inmates asserting she filed earlier grievances (as early as March–July 2015), that staff refused or lost grievance forms, intimidated or threatened inmates, and that responses were delayed or not provided.
- Dispute centers on (1) whether Plaintiff filed grievances prior to September 2015 that covered the complaint’s claims, and (2) whether the jail grievance process was “available” given alleged staff interference and lost/delayed responses.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact about exhaustion and availability of administrative remedies, denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s late evidence, and set an Albino evidentiary hearing for September 12, 2017 to resolve factual issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff exhausted available administrative remedies before filing suit | Villareal says she filed numerous grievances earlier (March–July 2015) and did not receive responses; some originals lost because she served them; therefore remedies were exhausted or unavailable | County says Plaintiff only filed grievances shortly before suit (Sept. 2015), did not await responses or appeal, and did not grieve all claims — so she failed to exhaust | Disputed material facts exist; summary judgment denied and evidentiary hearing ordered |
| Whether grievance procedures were "available" under PLRA (i.e., whether staff thwarted access) | Villareal and inmate declarations allege staff refused to provide grievance forms, threatened/intimidated inmates, and lost or ignored grievances, rendering process unavailable | County challenges admissibility and relevance of many declarations and contends process was available and Plaintiff did not properly use it | Court found sufficient sworn evidence to create a factual dispute on availability; evidence goes to weight not barred; evidentiary hearing ordered |
| Whether late-filed evidence should be struck | Villareal contends limited resources and pro se status caused filing irregularities; evidence supports exhaustion/availability claims | County moved to strike Plaintiff’s supplemental evidence as untimely and inadmissible | Court exercised discretion not to strike; denied motion to strike due to no prejudice and pro se context |
| Proper remedy if failure to exhaust is proven | N/A (Plaintiff seeks to proceed) | County seeks dismissal without prejudice as required under PLRA | Court did not decide on dismissal; directed a fact hearing to determine exhaustion before addressing remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (procedural framework for resolving PLRA exhaustion affirmative defense; when to hold an evidentiary hearing)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. 2016) (defines when administrative remedies are "available" — dead ends, opacity, or official interference)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion required even if administrative process may not award requested relief; availability requirement)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is required prior to suit; failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (procedural compliance required; untimely or defective appeals do not satisfy exhaustion)
- Andres v. Marshall, 854 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017) (prison officials' failure to timely respond can result in deemed exhaustion)
- Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (defendant bears burden to plead and prove failure to exhaust)
- Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2005) (when exhaustion lacking, remedy is dismissal without prejudice)