Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00129/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00129-3/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

MILES O. BONTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. INDERMILL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-06-0129 OWW DLB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BASED ON

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO POSTPONE

DECISION FOR EXHAUSTION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(Doc. 14)

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 February 6, 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). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

On September 25, 2006, plaintiff filed amotion for leave to complete administrative process.

Case 1:06-cv-00129-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 09/29/06 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

2

In his motion, plaintiff states that his administrative appeal regarding the issues before the court was

submitted to the directors level of review on August 6, 2006. Plaintiff requests that the Court

postpone its decision in his case until the process is complete. 

The Court cannot grant plaintiff’s request. Because is it clear from plaintiff’s motion 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) (“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. Plaintiff may refile this action upon exhaustion of the administrative process.

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: September 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00129-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2