Edwin Solorzano Perez v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment in a prisoner civil-rights action concerning alleged lack of non-slip footwear and inadequate medical care. The court held that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and dismissed the claims without prejudice.

Holdings

1. A district court may not grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment solely on the basis that it is unopposed; the movant's papers must themselves establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. Because undisputed evidence showed that Plaintiff did not pursue available administrative remedies concerning the lack of non-slip footwear or inadequate medical care for his back injury, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment under the PLRA.
3. A prisoner's belief that pursuing the grievance process would be futile, or a generalized history of filing grievances, does not excuse failure to exhaust available administrative remedies for the specific claims asserted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant was entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
2. Whether the unopposed summary-judgment motion could be granted solely because Plaintiff failed to oppose it.
3. Whether Plaintiff's general history of filing grievances or asserted futility excused exhaustion of the claims at issue.

Disposition

dismissed