Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baldomino v. Stephens

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

September 18, 2017

ALEXANDER BALDOMINO, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al. Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Alexander Baldomino filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. On September 4, 2014, this Court dismissed defendant William Stephens from this case. (Doc. # 29). On October 24, 2014, this Court dismissed without prejudice plaintiff's claims against defendant Rapher for failure to timely serve him with a summons and complaint. (Doc. # 34). On March 24, 2017, the remaining defendants, Gonzalez and Rathmann, moved for summary judgment. (Doc. # 48) Baldomino responded on May 30, 2017. The Court denied that motion, finding that there was an unresolved factual issue as to whether Baldomino properly exhausted his administrative remedies.

         On July 18, 2017, Gonzalez and Rathmann filed an amended motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 52). Baldomino did not respond to that motion. For the reasons stated below, the amended motion for summary judgment by defendants Gonzalez and Rathmann is granted.

         I. Background

         At all times relevant to this case, Baldomino was an inmate in, and defendants Gonzalez and Rathmann were Corrections Officers employed by, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) . Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to intervene promptly when he was attacked by another inmate, and that he has received inadequate medical treatment for injuries he sustained in that attack.

         II. Analysis

         A. Standard of Review

         Summary judgment is appropriate when “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). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the “evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

         B. Exhaustion of Remedies

         Before bringing a federal lawsuit challenging prison conditions, a prisoner must first exhaust available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).

The Texas prison system has developed a two-step formal grievance process. The Step 1 grievance, which must be filed within fifteen days of the complained-of incident, is handled within the prisoner's facility. After an adverse decision at Step 1, the prisoner has ten days to file a Step 2 grievance, which is handled at the state level. This court has previously held that a prisoner must pursue a grievance through both steps for it to be considered exhausted.

Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th Cir., 2004) . Defendants argue that Baldomino filed a Step 1 grievance concerning the alleged attack, and a Step 1 grievance regarding the allegedly inadequate medical care, both of which were denied. They further contend that he failed to file a Step 2 grievance regarding either complaint.

         Defendants submit copies of Baldomino's Step 1 grievances, accompanied by an affidavit establishing that these grievances were kept in the ordinary course of business. See Summary Judgment Motion, Exh. A. Baldomino did not respond to the amended motion for summary judgment, but responded to the original motion with a lengthy discussion of the merits of his claims and an assertion that he filed Step 2 grievances. He did not attach any copies of his Step 2 grievances or any evidence supporting his claim that he filed such grievances. See Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (“Response”) (Doc. # 49), at Exhibits B and C. Rather, he contended that he has attempted to obtain copies of his Step 2 grievances, but that the prison library will not provide them until he pays a fee for the copies. Response at 4.

         This Court denied the defendants' original motion for summary judgment, finding that the business records affidavit accompanying the Step 1 grievances failed to state that the attached records were a complete set of the relevant grievances filed by Baldomino. This left open the possibility ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.