Scalant v. Enrico

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALBERTO ERICK SCALANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT ENRICO,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-04516-RFL
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 23
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Alberto Scalant alleges in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that a sergeant at Santa
Cruz County Jail, Defendant Scott Enrico, retaliated against him due to his protected conduct.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the claims against
him. Plaintiff filed an opposition that somewhat discusses the merits of the claims and only
briefly addresses administrative exhaustion.
Defendant’s summary judgment motion is GRANTED. Defendant has presented
undisputed evidence that an administrative grievance system was available and capable of use —
in fact, Plaintiff made use of it many times at the jail. Defendant also presented undisputed
evidence that Plaintiff did not file any grievance regarding the claims in this case. Plaintiff’s
conclusory allegations in the opposition that he exhausted without any specific detail or
explanation is insufficient.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a Santa Cruz County detainee, alleges that he was subject to retaliation
orchestrated by Defendant since filing another civil rights case in 2023 and multiple jail
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 32 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 8

2
grievances. (Dkt. No. 10 at 2-3). He alleges that his cell was searched in retaliation for his other
civil rights case and contraband was found, which resulted in a disciplinary hearing that was
adjudicated by Defendant. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff filed a grievance in June 2024 regarding the
search and hearing, which allegedly resulted in additional retaliation from Defendant in the form
of commissary restrictions, cell searches, cell transfers, and denying outside time. (Id. at 4, 6,
20.) These retaliatory acts were allegedly either performed by Defendant or at his instruction.
(Id. at 3, 6.) Defendant also allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff after filing the other case in
2023. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff states that he was transferred to a different cell, was denied meals,
was placed near dangerous gang members in a housing unit where the doors did not lock, and he
was subject to more cell searches by Defendant. (Id. at 10, 12, 18.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges
that he was subject to retaliation when his meals were delayed, his legal mail was returned and
not sent, he was denied phone calls, his medication was changed, and certain features of his
electronic tablet were affected. (Id. at 14, 16, 28.)
During the relevant time, detainees at Santa Cruz County Jail (“Jail”) had the ability to
file grievances with jail staff and to appeal grievance decisions. (Motion for Summary Judgment
(MSJ), Kennedy Decl., Dkt. No. 23-6 ¶¶ 4, 6.) Once a detainee files a grievance, Jail staff will
investigate the grievance and provide the results of the investigation to the detainee. (Id. ¶ 5.)
The detainee can appeal the Jail’s findings to the facility manager. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.) This is called
the first level appeal, and Jail staff investigate the appeal and provide the results to the detainee.
(Id.) A detainee may appeal the finding of the first level, by filing an appeal to the chief deputy.
(Id. ¶ 10.) This is the second and final level of the appeals process. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.)
Between 2022 to 2025, Plaintiff filed approximately 86 grievances. (MSJ, Dkt. No. 23-7,
Ex. D at 1-225.)1 None of these grievances specifically alleged that Defendant retaliated against
Plaintiff as described above. (Id.) The Court reviewed all the grievances and found two that
identify Defendant and allegations that could conceivably be related to his involvement in this
1 The Court refers to the Bates-stamped page numbers for this exhibit.
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 32 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 8

3
case. (Id. at 118-23.)
On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff submitted Grievance 7674. (Id. at 118.) In summary,
he stated the following: Some of the jail officers have something against him, including
Defendant, and that Defendant was provoking him, and telling others to retaliate against him.
(Id. at 119.) On October 23, 2024, Defendant told mental health staff to come talk to Plaintiff.
(Id. at 120.) Mental health staff came to Plaintiff’s cell but just asked to look in the cell and did
not ask Plaintiff anything about his mental health. (Id.) There was some miscommunication
between Defendant and the mental health staff or just between mental health staff members.
(Id.) On November 4, 2024, Defendant made fun of him, and Plaintiff inquired if Defendant has
“something against me?” (Id.)
On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff submitted Grievance 8023. (Id. at 121.) He stated that
Defendant was abusing his authority and violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (Id. at 122.)
The grievance and appeals provide no other specific allegations or information. (Id. at 121-23.)
In his opposition, Plaintiff cites to one grievance, though he does not describe its
relevance or how it exhausted his claims against Defendant. (Dkt. No. 28 at 4.) On June 12,
2024, Plaintiff submitted Grievance 6471. (MSJ, Dkt. No. 23-7, Ex. D at 79-80.) Plaintiff stated
that on June 12, 2024, he ordered commissary but did not receive anything. (Id. at 80.) Plaintiff
was informed by a non-defendant that he was restricted from using the commissary due to a
disciplinary violation for possession of an intoxicant after he was found guilty at a hearing. (Id.)
The only reference to Defendant in the grievance was that he conducted the disciplinary hearing
that led to the commissary restriction. (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits demonstrate
that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may affect
the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute
as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 32 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 8

4
verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those
portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving
party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no
reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. On an issue for which the
opposing party by contrast will have the burden of proof at trial, as is the case here, the moving
party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s
case.” Id. at 325.
Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the
pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Court is concerned only with disputes over
material facts and “[f]actual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the court to scour the record in search of a
genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The
nonmoving party has the burden of identifying, with reasonable particularity, the evidence that
precludes summary judgment. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The Ninth Circuit has held that pro se inmates are exempted from the rule providing that
non-prisoner pro se litigants must comply strictly with the summary judgment rules. Thomas v.
Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). “We have, therefore, held consistently that courts
should construe liberally motion papers and pleadings filed by pro se inmates and should avoid
applying summary judgment rules strictly.” Id. While Ponder relieves pro se inmates from
strict compliance with summary judgment rules, it does not entirely release them from any
obligation to identify or submit at least some competent evidence in support of their claim. Soto
v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2018) (Plaintiff not entitled to equitable tolling because
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 32 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 8

5
he failed to submit any declaration, affidavit or other competent evidence in his opposition to
summary judgment; and first raised the issue in response to the district court’s show cause
order). It is not the task of the district court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of
triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996).
DISCUSSION
Prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court, as
mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638-641 (2016);
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). “No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A prisoner is required to exhaust the grievance procedures
that are “capable of use” to obtain “some relief for the action complained of.” Blake, 578 U.S. at
642 (quoting Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738 (2006)). Unless the administrative process is
not available, “the PLRA’s text suggests no limits on an inmate’s obligation to exhaust —
irrespective of any ‘special circumstances.’” Id. at 639. “[T]hat mandatory language means a
court may not excuse a failure to exhaust.” Id.
The prison’s requirements define the boundaries of proper exhaustion. Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). Proper exhaustion requires using all steps of an administrative
process and complying with “deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Ngo, 548 U.S. at 90.
The exhaustion requirement cannot be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally
defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Id. at 84.
The defendant bears the burden of proving that an administrative remedy was available to
the prisoner and that he failed to exhaust such remedy. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th
Cir. 2014). “Once the defendant has carried that burden, the prisoner has the burden of
production. That is, the burden shifts to the prisoner to come forward with evidence showing
that there is something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available
administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id.
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 32 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Defendant has presented undisputed evidence that an administrative remedy was
available to Plaintiff. In fact, the evidence shows that Plaintiff made use of the administrative
grievance process approximately 86 times between 2022 and 2025, so he was aware of the
procedures. Defendant presented evidence that none of the grievances filed by Plaintiff related
to Defendant retaliating against Plaintiff as described in the complaint.
In his opposition, Plaintiff only presents general conclusory allegations stating that he
exhausted available administrative remedies and all the grievances he filed with the Jail
demonstrate retaliation. Dkt. No. 27 at 2; Dkt. No. 28 at 4. However, he provides no details of
how he exhausted his remedies, nor does he address Defendant’s assertions that he did not file
any grievances related to Defendant and the retaliation in this case. Plaintiff does not cite to any
specific grievance or describe how it exhausted the claims against Defendant. While some of the
grievances describe the retaliation in this case, there is no mention of Defendant’s involvement.
To the extent any of Plaintiff’s 86 grievances could have been related to this case, it was
Plaintiff’s responsibility to present arguments and cite the evidence. Even though Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se while incarcerated, he still must identify or submit at least some competent
evidence in his opposition. See Soto, 882 F.3d at 873. It is not the Court’s responsibility to
scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. See Keenan, 91 F.3d at 1279.
Plaintiff does identify one grievance, discussed above, but fails to describe how it
exhausted the claims in this case or how it is relevant. It is undisputed that Grievance 6471
concerned the denial of commissary items on the basis that Plaintiff was disciplined for
possessing an intoxicant. The only reference to Defendant in the grievance was that he
conducted the disciplinary hearing that led to the commissary restriction. The grievance did not
discuss retaliation or any other allegations in this case.
In Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit noted that “the
primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its resolution.”
Id. at 1120. In Griffin, the plaintiff failed to mention in his grievance that prison staff were
ignoring a nurse’s order that would have remedied the problem. Id. at 1118-19. As a result, the
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 32 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 8

7
prison officials who were aware of the nurse’s order reasonably believed that the order had
solved the problem. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his
administrative remedies because he did not provide notice of the prison staff’s alleged disregard
of the nurse’s order, so the prison was never alerted “to the nature of his problem” and thus could
not take responsive measures to address it. Id. at 1121; see also Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942,
946 (9th Cir. 2010) (grievance that complained of visitation restrictions, and did not mention an
assault or theorize that the visitation restriction imposed was related to the assault, was
insufficient to put prison officials on notice that staff misconduct contributed to the assault);
O’Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (even with
liberal construction, grievance requesting a lower bunk due to poor balance resulting from a
previous brain injury was not equivalent to, and therefore did not exhaust administrative
remedies for, claims of denial of mental health treatment in violation of the ADA). Similar to
these cases, this grievance failed to sufficiently alert jail officials to the retaliation claims raised
in this case such that appropriate responsive measures could be taken.
While Plaintiff failed to discuss specific grievances, the Court reviewed his numerous
grievances to determine if any were applicable to this case. Yet, the two grievances identified by
the Court that are somewhat related likewise fail to exhaust Plaintiff’s claims. In Grievance
7674, Plaintiff stated that some of the jail officers have something against him, including
Defendant, and that Defendant was provoking him, and telling others to retaliate against him.
But Plaintiff’s only example was a miscommunication regarding Defendant telling mental health
staff to speak to Plaintiff. That does not contain enough information to exhaust Plaintiff’s claims
that there was an ongoing pattern of retaliation for two years manifested in the numerous ways
described in the complaint. This grievance failed to alert jail staff to such conduct to permit
them to address the concerns at issue. See Griffin, 557 F.3d at 1121.
Similarly, Grievance 8023 does not exhaust these claims. In that grievance, Plaintiff
stated that Defendant was abusing his authority and violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
However, he provided no other information in the grievance describing how Defendant was
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 32 Filed 02/19/26 Page 7 of 8

8
violating his rights or that there was retaliation. This too fails to exhaust his claims. Defendant
has met his burden by demonstrating that there was an administrative remedy available to
Plaintiff and that he failed to exhaust such remedy.
Plaintiff’s opposition only briefly discusses exhaustion, and he fails to address any of the
specific arguments and the evidence presented by Defendant. He does not even attempt to
demonstrate that he exhausted administrative remedies. His conclusory allegations are
insufficient. Nor has he presented any evidence or arguments to meet his burden showing that
there was something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available
administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED.2
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.3 (Dkt. No. 23.) The Clerk
shall terminate Dkt. No. 23, enter judgment in favor of Defendant, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
2 Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s opposition declaration, for failing to participate in the
deposition, is DENIED. (Dkt. Nos. 28, 29). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se while
incarcerated and was concerned about self-incrimination for his pending criminal case at the
deposition, the Court has reviewed the declaration. Even considering the arguments, Plaintiff
failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff is informed that he must participate in
depositions in his other cases in this Court and failure to participate could result in sanctions.
3 Because summary judgment is granted on exhaustion grounds, this order does not reach
Defendant’s remaining arguments on the merits.
Case 3:24-cv-04516-RFL Document 32 Filed 02/19/26 Page 8 of 8