Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02507/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02507-6/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 

TYRONE INGRAM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. HAMKAR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2507-WBS-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He requests leave to amend his complaint on the ground that he has attempted to 

exhaust claims that were previously dismissed in this action as unexhausted. ECF No. 43; see 

also ECF No. 36 (dismissing certain claims as unexhausted without prejudice to filing them in a 

new action). Plaintiff’s request must be denied. 

 Any claims dismissed in this action as unexhausted may not be pursued further in this 

case. Rather, plaintiff must pursue them, if at all, in a new action. “[A]llowing a prisoner to file 

unexhausted claims, then exhaust, then file an amended complaint regarding the same, old claims 

contained in the original complaint would create an end-run around the rule . . . that a prisoner 

must exhaust his administrative remedies for the claim contained within his complaint before the 

complaint is tendered to the . . . court.” Jones v. Felker, No. CIV S-08-0096, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 13730, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (emphasis added, internal quotations omitted, 

Case 2:11-cv-02507-WBS-EFB Document 44 Filed 11/26/13 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

citing Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2010)). Plaintiff’s repetition in an 

amended complaint of a claim that was not exhausted when he filed his original complaint, does 

not convert that unexhausted claim into a properly exhausted claim, even if it was subsequently 

addressed at the Director’s level of review. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 

(9th Cir. 2002) and Rhodes, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004-07 (together holding that claims must be 

exhausted prior to the filing of the original or supplemental complaint). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 43) 

is denied. 

Dated: November 25, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-02507-WBS-EFB Document 44 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 2