Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00980/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00980-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Marlow00980_dis-exh.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES GREGORY MARLOW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. K. WONG, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-00980 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff states that he did not file an

administrative appeal to the highest level of review available to him. Consequently, this

case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however, must

be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

Case 5:10-cv-00980-JF Document 12 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Marlow00980_dis-exh.wpd 2

1988).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996) (“PLRA”) provides: “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). Exhaustion is mandatory and not left to the

discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). Exhaustion is

a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such actions involve

general conditions or particular episodes, whether they allege excessive force or some

other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in grievance proceedings, such as 

money damages. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). The exhaustion

requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of all available administrative remedies. Ngo,

548 U.S. at 93.

The State of California provides its prisoners and parolees the right to appeal

administratively “any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by

those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §

3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a

prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal review, (2) first

formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second formal level appeal

to the institution head or designee, and (4) third formal level appeal to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Barry v Ratelle, 985 F. Supp

1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision

from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). 

See id. at 1237-38. 

Because exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a complaint may

be dismissed for failure to exhaust only if failure to exhaust is obvious from the face of

the complaint and/or any attached exhibits. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20

(9th Cir. 2003). The Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to exhaust where the

Case 5:10-cv-00980-JF Document 12 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Marlow00980_dis-exh.wpd 3

prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no exception to exhaustion applies.” Id. at

1120. Here, Plaintiff concedes in his complaint that he has not appealed to the highest

level of appeal available to him. (Compl. at 2.) He states that the reason he did not

present his claims through the grievance procedure is that the prison staff “stall[s]

grievances, lose them, [and] play games,” and that he is in “imminent danger of serious

physical injury.” (Id.) However, Plaintiff does not identify a single grievance to indicate

that he has made a good faith effort to seek and exhaust administrative remedies. 

Furthermore, none of his reasons are exceptions to exhaustion to excuse him from the

PLRA’s requirement of “proper exhaustion” under Ngo: “Proper exhaustion demands

compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no

adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on

the course of its proceedings.” 548 U.S. at 90-91 (footnote omitted). As it is clear from

the complaint that Plaintiff has not “properly exhausted” his claims by pursuing all levels

of administrative review available to him, and there is no applicable exception to the

exhaustion requirement, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to

Plaintiff’s refiling his claim after all available administrative remedies have been

exhausted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

5/12/10

Case 5:10-cv-00980-JF Document 12 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES G MARLOW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R K WONG, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV10-00980 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

James Gregory Marlow E-32700

CSP-San Quentin

CA State Prison at San Quentin

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

5/28/10

5/28/10

Case 5:10-cv-00980-JF Document 12 Filed 05/28/10 Page 4 of 4