Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05783/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05783-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT A. WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5783 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a State of California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

challenging the conditions of his confinement. He seeks declaratory, injunctive

and monetary relief. Plaintiff has not exhausted California's prison

administrative process, however. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") amended 42 U.S.C. §

1997e to provide that "[n]o 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). Although once

within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by

§ 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). All

Case 3:07-cv-05783-CRB Document 7 Filed 12/06/07 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

available remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation

omitted). Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance

proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Id.;

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Similarly, exhaustion is a

prerequisite to all prisoner suits about prison life, whether they involve general

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or

some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532. PLRA's exhaustion requirement

requires "proper exhaustion" of available administrative remedies. Woodford v.

Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006).

The State of California provides its prisoners 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). It also provides them the right to file appeals alleging

misconduct by correctional officers/officials. Id. § 3084.1(e). In order to exhaust

available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed

through several levels of appeal: (1) informal appeal, (2) first formal appeal on a

CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or

designee, and (4) third 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). Id. at 1237-38. 

 Nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense which should

be brought by defendant(s) in an unenumerated motion to dismiss under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

Case 3:07-cv-05783-CRB Document 7 Filed 12/06/07 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

2003). However, a complaint may be dismissed by the court for failure to

exhaust if a prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no exception to

exhaustion applies.” Id. at 1120. 

Here, plaintiff concedes he did not exhaust available administrative

remedies through the Director’s level of review before filing suit, but suggests 

that the exhaustion requirement should be excused because it is taking too long. 

Not so. The attachments to plaintiff's complaint show that he filed a first formal

level appeal on October 7, 2007, less than a month before he signed his

complaint on November 5, 2007. And the attachments to his recently-filed first

amended complaint show that the appeal was denied on November 1, 2007, and

that plaintiff submitted it to the second formal level shortly thereafter. The brief

delays at issue do not constitute the sort of extraordinary circumstances which

might compel that he be excused from exhausting available administrative

remedies. Cf. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6 (courts should not read "futility or other

exceptions" into § 1997e(a)).

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling

after exhausting California's prison administrative process. See McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (action must be dismissed

without prejudice unless prisoner exhausted available administrative remedies

before he filed suit, even if prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is pending).

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the

file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Dec. 6, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.07\Williamson, S1.or1.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-05783-CRB Document 7 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3