Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05628/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05628-9/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD R. HUMPHREYS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R BINKELE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05628-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, this action will be 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

BACKGROUND

On June 3, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which is 

docketed at Dkt. No. 55. Dkt. No. 66. The Court found that the second amended complaint, filed 

on February 22, 2019, alleged that between July 2018 and February 2019, correctional officers 

Baldin, Maldonald, Cuevas, and Lipatore stole Plaintiff’s mail and ordered other officers not to 

distribute his mail to him; prevented Plaintiff from receiving his legal mail; and retaliated against 

Plaintiff for filing lawsuits against Officer Baldin by withholding his mail.1 Dkt. No. 66 at 3 

(citing to Dkt. No. 55 at 4–13). The Court noted that, from the face of the second amended 

complaint, it did not appear that Plaintiff had exhausted his available administrative remedies with 

respect to the claims raised in the SAC before filing. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a

 

1 Plaintiff has also named as defendants Warden Koenig and Chief Deputy Warden R. Binkele, but 

he makes no allegations against them in the SAC.

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 71 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

response within 28 days, explaining why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. Id. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff responded to the Court’s June 3, 2019 Order to Show Cause by filing exhibits in 

the record on June 19, 2019, Dkt. No. 67, and by filing a declaration with the Court on July 5, 

2019, Dkt. No. 68. Plaintiff’s exhibits indicate that on January 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed Grievance 

No. CTF-19-00286, which alleged that Officers Baldin, Lipatore, Cuevas, and Maldonald had 

been stealing his mail. Dkt. No. 67 at 2–5. The second level response construed this grievance as 

alleging that Officers Baldin, Lipatore, Cuevas, and Maldonald had been stealing his mail from 

approximately October 7, 2018 through January 31, 2019. Dkt. No. 67 at 6. The second level 

response granted his grievance in part in that an investigation was conducted into Plaintiff’s 

allegations, but otherwise denied the grievance, finding that correctional staff did not violate 

CDCR policy with respect to the issues grieved. Id. Plaintiff appealed this denial to the third 

level of review, but the appeal was rejected on May 7, 2019 because it lacked a necessary 

supporting document. Id. at 1. There is nothing in the record that shows that Plaintiff resubmitted 

his appeal to the third level or that Grievance No. 19-00286 received a final decision at the third 

level of review. In his declaration, Plaintiff alleges that he has not received mail since November 

6, 2018, due to various correctional officers, including Officers Baldin, Lipatore, Cuevas, and 

Maldonald, stealing his mail. Dkt. No. 68.

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides 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). Prisoners are 

required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 

U.S. 199, 211 (2007). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison 

life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief 

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, unless “the relevant 

administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action whatsoever in 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 71 Filed 11/12/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); Ross v. Blake, 136 

S.Ct. 1850, 1857, 1859 (2016). An action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausts his 

available administrative remedies before he or she files suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts 

while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 

Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (where administrative remedies are not 

exhausted before prisoner sends complaint to court, it will be dismissed even if exhaustion is 

completed by the time complaint is actually filed). But a prisoner satisfies the exhaustion 

requirement as long as he exhausts his administrative remedies prior to filing an amended 

complaint. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2010) (PLRA’s exhaustion 

requirement was satisfied for new claims raised in amended complaint which arose after original 

complaint was filed where administrative remedies for new claims were exhausted prior to filing 

of amended complaint). If the Court concludes that a plaintiff has failed to exhaust his or her 

administrative remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice of the portions of the 

complaint barred by section 1997e(a). Jones, 549 U.S. at 223–24.

“The California prison grievance system has three levels of review; an inmate exhausts 

administrative remedies by obtaining a decision at each level.” Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 657 

(9th Cir. 2016) (citing 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.1(b) (2011) and Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 

681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010)). “The third level of review exhausts administrative remedies . . .” 15 

Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.7(d)(3).

The record shows that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to 

his claims in the second amended complaint prior to filing. The second amended complaint was 

filed on February 22, 2019. See Dkt. No. 55. The Court will assume arguendo that Grievance No. 

19-00268 grieves some, or all, of the same claims as those raised in the second amended 

complaint. However, as of the date of the filing of the second amended complaint, Plaintiff had 

only received a second level response to this grievance. A decision at the third level of review is 

required to exhaust CDCR’s administrative remedies. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.1(b) (“Unless 

otherwise stated in these regulations, all appeals are subjected to a third level of review, as 

described in section 3084.7, because administrative remedies are exhausted.”); see also 15 Cal. 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 71 Filed 11/12/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

Code Regs. § 3084.7(d)(3). Plaintiff therefore did not exhaust his administrative remedies with 

respect to his claims in the second amended complaint prior to filing,2and this action must be 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Vaden, 449 

F.3d at 1051.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies without prejudice to refiling a new, separate action once Plaintiff has finished exhausting 

his administrative remedies with respect to the claims raised in the SAC. The Clerk shall 

terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of Defendants, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

2

“A cancellation or rejection decision does not exhaust administrative remedies.” 15 Cal. Code 

Regs. § 3084.1(b). Accordingly, the May 7, 2019 letter from the Office of Appeals rejecting 

Plaintiff’s appeal of the second level denial of Grievance No. CTF-19-00286 also does not exhaust 

Plaintiff’s administrative remedies with respect to the issues raised in Grievance No. CTF-19-

00286. 

11/12/2019

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 71 Filed 11/12/19 Page 4 of 4