Goodrow v. Uttecht et al, No. 4:2014cv05023 - Document 63 (E.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; denying as moot 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 57 Motion to Strike; granting 35 Motion for Summary Judgment. Case closed. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CV, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Goodrow v. Uttecht et al Doc. 63 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 7 No. MATTHEW GOODROW, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 4:14-CV-5023-EFS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. Sgt. HANNON, CC2 GUNTHER, CUS PERKINS, and C/O NISSIN, 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court, without oral argument, are Defendants’ Motion 14 for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 35; Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15 41; and Motion to Strike, ECF No. 57. 16 Plaintiff, Matthew Goodrow, has sued four employees of the 17 Coyote Ridge Corrections Center after he was allegedly attacked by Mr. 18 Christopher Parker, a fellow inmate, on May 20, 2013. ECF No. 6. 19 Plaintiff claims he told each of the Defendants that Mr. Parker had 20 threatened him and none of them took steps to keep him safe. Id. He 21 argues that this “deliberate indifference” by the Defendants 22 constitutes a violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth 23 Amendments and is suing for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 Id. 25 // 26 ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendants filed two motions for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 2 35 & 41. The first argues that Mr. Goodrow failed to exhaust his 3 administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform 4 Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. ECF No. 35. The second motion argues 5 that no constitutional violations occurred. ECF No. 41. 6 I. Factual History 7 On May 9, 2013, Mr. Goodrow arrived at Coyote Ridge Corrections 8 Center. ECF No. 54 at 1. Mr. Goodrow was assigned to a cell with Mr. 9 Chris Parker. Id. at 2. Mr. Goodrow claims that from the moment he 10 moved in Mr. Parker was difficult, “angry,” and a “germaphobe.” Id. He 11 also claims that multiple people at the center told him that putting 12 him in the same cell as Mr. Parker was a mistake. Id. Over the next 13 few days, Mr. Goodrow repeatedly spoke with various Department of 14 Corrections officers and counselors about being moved to a different 15 cell. Id. at 3. Finally, after a couple of verbal incidents between 16 the two inmates, Mr. Goodrow was finally moved to a new cell on May 17 15. Id. at 4-5. On May 16, Mr. Goodrow met with the Facility Risk 18 Management 19 happened. Id. at 6. Mr. Goodrow then wrote a statement against Mr. 20 Parker. He claims that the statement was leaked to Mr. Parker and that 21 Mr. Parker became angry at him for writing it. Id. On May 20, Mr. 22 Parker allegedly told Mr. Goodrow two times “You’re going to lose your 23 life.” Id. at 7. That same day, Mr. Goodrow told his counselor that 24 Mr. 25 approximately 3:00 p.m., Mr. Parker came to see Mr. Goodrow and asked 26 to see the move request form. When Mr. Goodrow turned to get it for Parker ORDER - 2 Team, had which included threatened him. Defendants, Id. Later and that told same them day, what at 1 him, Mr. Parker attacked him. Id. As a result, Mr. Goodrow suffered a 2 concussion and received stiches for a cut on his head. Id. at 7-8. Mr. 3 Goodrow 4 released into general population on May 29, 2013. ECF No. 40-1 at 46. was Mr. 5 held Goodrow in administrative-segregation did not pursue any for remedial ten days action then until 6 approximately six months later when on January 4, 2014, he filed a 7 Standard Tort Claim Form with the State of Washington. ECF No. 40-2. 8 S. 9 investigated the incident and wrote Mr. Goodrow explaining that he did 10 not have a tort claim against the state. ECF No. 6 at 9. Mr. Goodrow 11 then filed the 12 admitted in his filings that he did not exhaust the administrative 13 procedures before filing. ECF No. 6 at 2. It was not until July 19, 14 2014, fourteen months after the incident and five months after filing 15 this 16 regarding the incident. ECF No. 38-2. Under Department of Corrections 17 regulations, grievances must be filed within 20 days of the incident 18 but extensions may be granted under special circumstances. ECF 38 at 19 4. 20 Nace, a case, Mr. Tort that for Mr. Goodrow claims still that submitted he suffering was from the State of Washington, on February 20, a grievance unable to headaches to file 2014, the a resulting and prison grievance 21 because 22 attack. ECF No. 59 at 2. He also claims that he did not know that 23 grievances must be filed within 20 days of the incident occurring. Id. 24 However, in his deposition, Mr. Goodrow admited that there was nothing 25 that kept him from filing a grievance other than the fact that he did 26 not know about the 20-day filing window. ECF No. 40-1 at 63. ORDER - 3 was Investigator complaint in this case Goodrow he Claim from the 1 Every inmate who arrives at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center must 2 undergo an orientation meeting during which an explanation of the 3 grievance procedure is given. Mr. Goodrow attended this meeting and 4 signed a document confirming that the procedures had been discussed. 5 ECF No. 39-1. The 20-day requirement is listed in both the Offender 6 Grievance Program Handout and on the Grievance form itself. 7 II. Analysis 8 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) states that “No action 9 shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 10 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner . . . 11 such 12 U.S.C. 13 administrative remedies before bringing a federal action concerning 14 prison conditions.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 15 2009). “Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance 16 proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to 17 suit.” 18 “proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary.” Woodford 19 v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382, 165 L. Ed. 2d 368 20 (2006). Specifically, a prisoner must exhaust the remedy within the 21 proper time frame or he will not be considered to have fully exhausted 22 his remedies. Id. (holding that a prisoner, who failed to file a 23 grievance within the requisite 15-day window, did not exhaust his 24 administrative remedies). administrative § 1997e. Porter v. It remedies as “requires Nussle, 534 are that U.S. available a are prisoner 516, 524 until exhausted.” exhaust (2002). 42 available Furthermore, 25 Here, Mr. Goodrow was attacked on May 20, 2013. ECF No. 6. He 26 did not file a grievance with the prison until fourteen months after ORDER - 4 1 the incident and five months after he had filed suit in this Court. 2 ECF No. 38-2. At the he filed this lawsuit, he had never filed a 3 grievance with the Department of Corrections on this subject or any 4 other. He did not make a formal complaint to anyone until seven months 5 after the incident when he filed a tort claim with the State of 6 Washington. ECF No. 40-2. 7 Mr. Goodrow’s excuses for this failure to exhaust his 8 administrative remedies are unpersuasive. His first is that he was 9 unable to file a grievance after the incident due to the pain he was 10 in as a result of the attack. However, he admits that he was released 11 from observation and put back in general population after ten days. 12 This left him ten days to file a grievance. Furthermore, Mr. Goodrow 13 admitted in his deposition that the only thing that prevented him from 14 filing a grievance when released was that he didn’t know he had to. 15 ECF No. 40-1 at 63. This is his second reason: that he didn’t know. 16 Mr. Goodrow claims that he didn’t know about the procedure. But every 17 inmate is told about the procedures and Mr. Goodrow signed a document 18 acknowledging 19 orientation meeting. ECF No. 39-1. that 20 The procedures were covered in the exhaust his III. Conclusion 21 grievance Court finds that Mr. Goodrow failed to 22 administrative remedies and is barred from pursuing a § 1983 claim by 23 the PLRA. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary 24 Judgment, ECF No. 35. As a result, it is unnecessary for the Court to 25 analyze the merits of Mr. Goodrow’s claims and denies the Defendants’ 26 ORDER - 5 1 Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 41, and Motion to Strike, ECF No. 2 57, as moot. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. GRANTED. 5 6 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 35, is 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement, ECF No. 41, and Motion to Strike, ECF No. 57, are DENIED AS MOOT. 7 8 3. All pending deadlines, hearing, and trial are STRICKEN. 9 4. Judgment is 11 5. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 be entered in Defendants’ favor with prejudice. 10 13 to This file shall be CLOSED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to Mr. Goodrow and counsel. DATED this 1st day of October 2015. 15 s/Edward F. Shea EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2014\5023.ord.grant.sj.lc2.docx ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
