Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00812/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00812-5/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

AHMAD RAHEEM PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1-3, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00812-AWI-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

(Doc. 10)

Plaintiff Ahmad Raheem Price (“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 June

26, 2006. On August 10, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

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). 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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement applies

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

must occur prior to filing suit, McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In this instance, plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint that exhaustion has occurred in

accordance with Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005). (Doc. 10, § B.) Under the Ninth

Case 1:06-cv-00812-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Circuit’s decision in Ngo, exhaustion occurred when an inmate’s appeal was barred by the appeals

coordinator on procedural grounds and “no further level of appeal remained in the state prison’s

internal appeals process.” Id. at 631. However, on June 22, 2006, the United States Supreme Court

reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo and held that “proper exhaustion of administrative

remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion requirement may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely

or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006).

“Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural

rules . . . .” Id. at 2386.

Plaintiff’s allegations and exhibits establish that his appeals were screened out. Prior to the

issuance of the decision in Woodford, plaintiff would have been able to proceed in this action.

However, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodford, plaintiff failed to exhaust the

administrative remedies as mandated by section 1997e(a). “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the

PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, Nos. 05-7058, 05-

7142, 2007 WL 135890, at *8 (Jan. 22, 2007) (citing Porter, 435 U.S. at 524) (emphasis added).

Because is it clear from the face of plaintiff’s amended complaint that he did not exhaust 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 his claims

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 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00812-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 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

3

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: February 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00812-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 3