Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03223/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03223-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

ROBERT BEED,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O V. CHILDERS,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-3223 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Robert Beed, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility - Soledad, filed this pro

se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he complained that a correctional

officer was "racist profiling" him and had subjected him to two cell searches and other

unidentified retaliatory conduct. Complaint, p. 3. His complaint is now before the court for

initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2).

There is an exhaustion problem in this action. "No 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). The State of California provides its

inmates and parolees the right to appeal administratively "any departmental decision, action,

Case 3:06-cv-03223-MHP Document 5 Filed 09/08/06 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

condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." See

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). 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. See id. § 3084.5; Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S. Ct. 2378,

2383 (2006); Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). Nonexhaustion

under § 1997e(a) is usually an affirmative defense, but 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." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

The materials submitted by Beed plainly show he has not exhausted administrative

remedies. On the form complaint, Beed checked the box that indicated that he had pursued

his inmate appeal to "the highest level of appeal available" to him and directed the reader to

"please see attach [sic] to back of this form." Complaint, p.2. The attachments to the

complaint plainly show that Beed did not pursue his inmate appeal to the highest level before

filing this action. He pursued his inmate appeal to only the first formal level of review. In

the first level response, the reviewer partially granted the appeal in that he investigated

Beed's allegation but denied the substantive request that officers leave Beed alone. The

inmate appeal form is left blank in the portions of it designated for the inmate to indicate his

dissatisfaction with the responses to first and second level appeal responses and in the

portions for the second level response and the third level response. Beed's efforts did not

satisfy the requirement that he exhaust administrative remedies before filing this action. For

the foregoing reasons, this action therefore is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff

filing a new action after he exhausts his administrative remedies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2006 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03223-MHP Document 5 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 2