United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Honorable Paul Papak United States Magistrate Judge
pro se Christopher Lee Barnes, an incarcerated
prisoner, filed this action in forma pauperis
against defendants Steve Boston, the Oregon Department of
Collections, and the State of Oregon. This court has
dismissed Barnes's claims against the Oregon Department
of Corrections and the State of Oregon, leaving Boston as the
only defendant. Barnes claims Boston is liable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourteenth Amendment
rights to due process and equal protection.
now moves for summary judgment, contending that Barnes failed
to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 13. For the
reasons set forth below, Boston's motion for summary
judgment should be granted.
is an inmate at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution.
Boston is a correctional lieutenant, and was a correctional
captain at the time of Barnes's allegations.
alleges Boston "continues to house the plaintiff in an
unsafe unit, while having personal knowledge that the
plaintiff is being subjected to verbal threats on his life by
another inmate who has already physically harmed the
plaintiff." Compl. 4, ECF No. 2. Barnes alleges that, by
subjecting him daily to imminent danger, Boston acted
inconsistently with the institution's rules and policies,
as well as state law. Compl. 5C.
submits a declaration from James A. Taylor, a Grievance
Coordinator who reviewed Barnes's records at the Oregon
Department of Corrections (ODOC). See Taylor Decl.,
ECF No. 14. Taylor states that inmates may seek
administrative review of complaints through a grievance
review process, which includes an appeals process. Taylor
Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8-9.
Rivers Correctional Institution received a grievance from
Barnes on March 14, 2016. In the grievance, Barnes stated
that he had spoken to Boston on March 10, 2016 about the.
dangers of his current housing placement, and that Boston
refused to transfer him to a different housing placement.
Taylor Deck, Attach. 4. The Grievance Coordinator's
office accepted Barnes's grievance and sent it to Boston
for a written reply. Boston issued his reply to the grievance
on May 18, 2016. Taylor Decl,, Attach. 4, at 1.
states that after thoroughly reviewing ODOC records, he found
no evidence that Barnes had ever filed a first or second
appeal of his grievance against Boston. Taylor Decl. ¶
10. Taylor notes that Barnes had filed several other
grievances, Taylor Decl. ¶ 9. Taylor states that '
because Barnes did not appeal the denial of his grievance, he
failed to complete the grievance process. Taylor Decl. ¶
STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The substantive law governing a claim or
defense determines whether a fact is material. See
Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't 159 F.3d
365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998).
judgment is not proper if material factual issues exist for
trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 318,
322 (1986). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, this
court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party, and may not make credibility findings or
weigh evidence. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
Inc., 530 U, S. 133, 150 (2000). In civil actions
brought by a pro se plaintiff, the court construes
the pleadings liberally and gives the plaintiff the benefit
of any doubt. Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1158
(9th Cir. 2008).
contends that Barnes has failed to exhaust administrative
remedies as required by the Prison ...