Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03696/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03696-0/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

ERIC EL,

Plaintiff,

v.

Warden M.S. EVANS; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-3696 SI (pr)

ORDER 

INTRODUCTION

Eric El, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, El alleges that a correctional officer used excessive force

on him on September 29, 2005. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

 DISCUSSION

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). In its review 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 id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:06-cv-03696-SI Document 4 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 3
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

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, 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). Ngo explained that the rejection of an inmate appeal

for a procedural defect -- even a incurable one such as untimeliness -- does not exhaust

administrative remedies. 

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 complaint and attachment to it appear to show that El did not exhaust administrative

remedies. He alleges in his complaint that he exhausted because the "institution refused to

accept appeal." Complaint, p. 2. The inmate appeal materials attached to the complaint appear

to clarify the situation, showing that the inmate appeal was returned to El with an

"inmate/parolee appeal screening form" on which it was stated that the inmate appeal form was

rejected because it was "not completed properly" and "the appeal is not timely." The inmate

appeal had been submitted two months after the incident occurred; i.e., the incident occurred on

September 29, El wrote the appeal on November 30, and prison staff rejected it on December

6, 2005. The screening form stated: "This screening action may not be appealed. If you allege

the above reason is inaccurate, then attach an explanation on a separate piece of paper, or use

the back of this screen out – do not write any more on the appeal itself. Please return this form

Case 3:06-cv-03696-SI Document 4 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

to the Appeals Coordinator with the necessary information attached." There are no documents

attached to the complaint that suggest El pursued the matter further. 

The rejection of the appeal as untimely means that El has not exhausted his administrative

remedies and apparently cannot do so. The recent decision in Ngo appears to bar this action.

In Ngo, the Supreme Court determined that an inmate had not exhausted his administrative

remedies when his inmate appeal was rejected as untimely. It therefore appears that this action

should be dismissed with prejudice under the rationale of Ngo because El did not exhaust his

administrative remedies before filing it. Before deciding that dismissal is appropriate, the court

will give El an opportunity to explain why this action should not be dismissed. For example, he

might be able to show that the preceding paragraph does not correctly state the facts in his case,

or that he filed another appeal that was able to be pursued all the way to the Director's Level.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, El may file no later than September 22, 2006, an explanation

or argument as to why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies before filing this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03696-SI Document 4 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 3