Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00109/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00109-0/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

ALVARO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

R. PIÑA, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06–0109 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Doc # 2)

Plaintiff, a State of California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”), has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming

inadequate dental care. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief. He also

seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and requests

that the court excuse his obligation to exhaust available administrative remedies. 

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 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 3:06-cv-00109-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 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. 

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 resolution, (2) formal written

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. 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.

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

Case 3:06-cv-00109-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 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

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 argues that the exhaustion requirement should be excused because

he has been denied proper treatment for too long. Plaintiff’s argument is not

persuasive. The attachments to the complaint show that plaintiff was seen by Dr.

Piña on October 11, 2005 and, after an examination with x-rays, advised to

request an extraction of the teeth that have been bothering him, or request

treatment of cavity and tooth sensitivity. Plaintiff has presented no extraordinary

circumstances which might compel that he be excused from exhausting available

administrative remedies by proceeding to the final Director’s level of review. Cf.

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

into § 1997e(a)).

Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc # 2) is

DENIED and 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. No fee is due.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 17, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00109-CRB Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 3