Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04324/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04324-0/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 G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\murray.exh.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMIEN MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL HENNESSEY, et al,

Defendants. _____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4324 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed the above-titled civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 that

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, however, must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide 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

Case 3:07-cv-04324-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/28/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\murray.exh.wpd 2

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The exhaustion

requirement under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and not merely directory. Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct.

983, 988 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet federal

standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation omitted). Even when the

prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a

prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Exhaustion is a prerequisite to

all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such actions involve general conditions or

particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 122 S. Ct.

at 992.

An action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted his available administrative

remedies before he or she filed suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is

pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see Vaden v.

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

exhausted before the prisoner sends his complaint to the court it will be dismissed even if

exhaustion is completed by the time the complaint is actually filed). 

Because exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a complaint may be

dismissed for failure to exhaust only if failure to exhaust is obvious from the face of the

complaint and/or any attached exhibits. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct 50 (2003). However, 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." Id. at 1120. Here, plaintiff states in his complaint that he has filed some

administrative grievances, and that the “last appeal process [is] still ongoing.” See Complaint at 4. 

As explained above, § 1997e(a) requires that plaintiff complete all of his administrative appeals

prior to raising his claims in a § 1983 complaint in federal court. See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199. 

As it is clear from the face of the complaint that plaintiff had an administrative appeal pending when

he filed the instant action, and had not completed all levels of administrative grievances available to

him, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after

Case 3:07-cv-04324-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/28/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\murray.exh.wpd 3

all available administrative remedies have been completed. 

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 2 and any other pending motions.

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 09/28/07 _____________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04324-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3