United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge
before the Court is Defendant Benjamin K. Lee's Motion
for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 20. Also pending is Plaintiff
Emmanual Bautista-Aguayo's Motion to Take Judicial
Notice. Dkt. 24.
Motions are fully briefed and ripe for the Court's
review. Having reviewed the record herein, the Court finds
the parties have adequately presented the facts and legal
arguments in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the
interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly
aided by oral argument, the Court decides the Motions without
oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant
Lee's Summary Judgment Motion and DENIES Plaintiff
Bautista-Aguayo's Motion to Take Judicial
Bautista-Aguayo is an inmate in the custody of the Idaho
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”).
Bautista-Aguayo asserts that, on November 4, 2014, at the
Idaho State Correctional Institution (“ISCI”),
the Defendant, Sergeant Benjamin K. Lee sexually assaulted
him while performing a body search. Bautista-Aguayo filed a
Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint with the Court on February 2,
2017. The Court issued an Initial Review Order allowing
Bautista-Aguayo to proceed against Lee. In a Successive
Review Order, the Court noted that Bautista-Aguayo had
attached a grievance to his Amended Complaint appearing to
show that he had exhausted any available administrative
remedies as required. The Successive Review Order also
allowed Lee the opportunity to file a Motion of Summary
Judgment. Lee subsequently filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment claiming Bautista-Aguayo's claim has not been
administratively exhausted as required under 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a) and further, that his claim is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.
judgment is proper “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 Court's role at summary judgment is not
“to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436,
441 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). In considering a
motion for summary judgment, the Court must “view the
facts in the non-moving party's favor.”
defeat a motion for summary judgment, the respondent need
only present evidence upon which “a reasonable juror
drawing all inferences in favor of the respondent could
return a verdict in [his or her] favor.” Id.
(citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court must enter summary
judgment if a party “fails to make a showing sufficient
to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The respondent cannot
simply rely on an unsworn affidavit or the pleadings to
defeat a motion for summary judgment; rather the respondent
must set forth the “specific facts, ” supported
by evidence, with “reasonable particularity” that
precludes summary judgment. Far Out Productions, Inc. v.
Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 997 (9th Cir. 2001).
Exhausting of Administrative Process
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, “[n]o action shall be
brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983
of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility
until such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
87-88 (2006) (emphasis original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a) (2000 ed.)). “The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is well established in the
jurisprudence of administrative law. . . . The doctrine
provides ‘that no one is entitled to judicial relief
for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed
administrative remedy has been exhausted.'”
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88-89(quoting McKart v.
United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 (1969)). Exhaustion
requires both following the proper steps set forward by the
administrative agency and doing so properly.
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 (quoting Pozo v.
McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002)).
the administrative process actually produces a result that
satisfies the inmate is not the appropriate inquiry. Instead,
courts merely need to ask whether the institution has an
internal administrative grievance process in place, then
§ 1997e(a) requires inmates to exhaust those procedures
before bringing a prison conditions claim.” Massey
v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 733-34 (7th Cir. 1999);
accord Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 737-41
present case, the administrative agency that Bautista-Aguayo
reports to is IDOC. IDOC has an administrative grievance
process set up for precisely these instances and it has been
adhering to these procedures since 1990. The IDOC offender
grievance process is set forth in the Department's
Standard Operating Procedure 316.02.01.001. The grievance
process may be used by offenders for most things that affect
them during incarceration. The IDOC grievance process is a
three-step process and the offender must complete all three
steps (or levels) in order to exhaust the administrative
grievance process. The process requires the inmate to: (1)
Seek an informal resolution of the matter by completing an
Offender Concern Form, (2) Complete a Grievance ...