Susan Polk v. Mary Lattimore

discussion with the coordinator, but it includes no mention of the snitch jacket or

Baron. In appealing the Second Level Response, Polk again did not mention the

snitch jacket or Baron. Her statements instead focused on the February incident.

Polk’s “conclusory, self-serving statement[ ]” that she told the coordinator about

her allegations against Baron “lack[s] detailed facts and any supporting evidence,”

so it “is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact” about whether prison

officials were on notice of the alleged wrong. FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc.,

3 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997).

2. Polk also argues that the appeals process was unavailable to her for

several reasons. First, under the prison’s regulations, a prisoner was required to

submit a grievance within fifteen working days of the action or policy giving rise

to the grievance, and a prisoner was limited to filing one non-emergency grievance

per seven calendar days. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.4(a), 3084.6(c) (2008).

Polk received notice of the guilty finding regarding the February incident around

the time that she alleges Baron put her in the “snitch jacket” and Miranda…