Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00280/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00280-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE PRINCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0280 DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

THE EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT

By the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), Congress amended 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e to provide that “[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.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a). The exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether 

they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive 

force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00280-DAD Document 19 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that exhaustion of prison administrative 

procedures is mandated regardless of the relief offered through such procedures. See Booth v. 

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The Supreme Court has also cautioned against reading 

futility or other exceptions into the statutory exhaustion requirement. See id. at 741 n.6. 

Moreover, because proper exhaustion is necessary, a prisoner cannot satisfy the PLRA exhaustion 

requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or 

appeal. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-93 (2006). “[T]o properly exhaust administrative 

remedies prisoners „must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the 

applicable procedural rules,‟ [ ] - rules that are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison 

grievance process itself.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (quoting Woodford, 548 U.S. 

at 88). See also Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The California prison 

system‟s requirements „define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.‟”).

In California, prisoners may appeal “any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission 

by the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material 

adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). 

Most appeals progress through three levels of review. See id. § 3084.7. The third level of review 

constitutes the decision of the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation and exhausts a prisoner‟s administrative remedies. See id. § 3084.7(d)(3). A 

California prisoner is required to submit an inmate appeal at the appropriate level and proceed to 

the highest level of review available to him. Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 

2005); Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2002).

DISCUSSION

In this case, plaintiff alleges that he is not receiving adequate medical care at California 

Health Care Facility. (Compl. at 3.) In his form complaint, plaintiff concedes that he has not 

exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required. (Id. at 1-2.) Specifically, 

plaintiff acknowledges that there is a grievance procedure at California Health Care Facility. (Id.

at 1.) In addition, although plaintiff contends that he has submitted an inmate appeal concerning 

the allegations set forth in his complaint, he concedes that he has not yet received a decision from 

Case 2:15-cv-00280-DAD Document 19 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the first, second, or third formal levels of review. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also concedes in his 

complaint that he has not appealed to the highest level of appeal available to him through the 

administrative appeal process. (Id.) 

It is well established that “[a] prisoner‟s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for 

dismissal.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds 

by Albino, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). See also Sorce v. Garikpaetiti, Civil No. 14-CV-0327 

BEN (JMA), (S.D. Cal. June 2, 2014) (relying on the decision in Albino and dismissing the 

complaint on screening because “it is clear from the face of [plaintiff‟s] pleading that he has 

conceded that he failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies . . . before he commenced 

this action”). Accordingly, due to plaintiff‟s conceded failure to exhaust his administrative 

remedies the court will dismiss plaintiff‟s complaint without prejudice.1 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff‟s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 7) is denied; and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff‟s failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required.

Dated: March 5, 2015

DAD:9

prin0280.56

 

1

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636. (Doc. Nos. 8 & 17)

Case 2:15-cv-00280-DAD Document 19 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 3