Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02454-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATHAN NASH,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-2454 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS

Gary Williams filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he

alleged that defendant used excessive force on him while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley

State Prison. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Williams failed to exhaust

administrative remedies before filing the action, and Williams opposed the motion. 

The motion must be denied based on an opinion issued after defendant filed his motion.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held in Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021, 1023-24 (9th Cir.

2009), that the provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that requires exhaustion of

administrative remedies, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), does not apply to former prisoners. Regardless

of whether the plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of the acts or omissions giving rise to the § 1983

claim occurred, if he is not a prisoner at the time he files the action, he need not comply with the

exhaustion requirement to proceed. See id. That is the situation here: Williams had been

released on parole and was not a "prisoner" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e at the time

he filed this action, even though he was a prisoner before the action was filed and became one

again months after the action was filed. Section 1997e(a) does not bar Williams' action because

Case 3:08-cv-02454-SI Document 30 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 he was not a prisoner at the time he filed this action. Defendant's motion to dismiss therefore

is DENIED. (Docket # 24.)

No later than February 26, 2010, the parties must file and serve case management

reports indicating what discovery remains to be done, the amount of time needed for discovery,

whether any further motions will be filed, when they will be ready for trial, and the expected

length of the trial. In his case management report, plaintiff also should state when he expects

to be released from custody. The statements need not be jointly prepared. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02454-SI Document 30 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2