Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00510/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00510-4/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

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas M. James, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0510-PHX-GMS (JFM)

ORDER

By Order dated January 15, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss

and dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

(Doc. 38). Plaintiff seeks clarification of that Order (Doc. 40). The Court will grant the

motion to the extent explained herein.

First, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, he was not assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Rather, the Court determined that if Plaintiff should file an appeal, he would not

be entitled to in forma pauperis status because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Second, Plaintiff requests that his filing fee be refunded. But the Court has no discretion to

authorize a refund to Plaintiff because all prisoners who file civil actions in forma pauperis

must pay the full amount of the filing fee. Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.

2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)).

Plaintiff also seeks clarification as to whether he may continue the exhaustion process.

The PLRA mandates that an inmate exhaust remedies before filing a lawsuit invoking 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2006); McKinney

Case 2:10-cv-00510-GMS Document 42 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 2
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 -

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). The statute governing exhaustion states

that “[n]o action shall be brought . . . until [the prisoner’s] administrative remedies . . . are

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Consequently, Plaintiff must properly complete the

prison’s grievance procedure before filing a new action.

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff presents arguments about his failure to exhaust or

the merits of his claims, they are merely recapitulations of what the Court considered and

rejected when it ruled on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff is seeking

reconsideration, the request is denied. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116

(D. Ariz. 1998) (explaining that reconsideration may not be used to ask the court to rethink

what it has already thought through). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (Doc. 40)

is granted to the extent detailed herein.

DATED this 8th day of February, 2013.

 

Case 2:10-cv-00510-GMS Document 42 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 2