Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00304/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00304-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK HAFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. TAUNTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00304-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 25)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Frank Hafer (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 20, 2006.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 19, 2006.

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the

prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.

2002). 

Case 1:06-cv-00304-OWW -LJO Document 26 Filed 10/10/06 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 In his original complaint, filed March 20, 2006, plaintiff alleged that he had filed a grievance but the 1

process was not yet complete. (Doc. 1, § II.)

2

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges he filed a grievance concerning the facts of this

case on December 7, 2005, and received a Director’s Level decision, thereby exhausting the process,

on June 28, 2006. (Doc. 25, pg. 9.) Because is it clear from the face of plaintiff’s amended

complaint that he did not exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit, this action

must be dismissed. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) 1

(“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid grounds for dismissal . . . .”). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting the

available administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00304-OWW -LJO Document 26 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2