Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04712/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04712-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY FRANCIS O’LEARY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, GOVERNOR

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

ATTORNEY GENERAL JERRY

BROWN,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-4712 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison, has filed a civil rights complaint complaining the conditions of his confinement

while incarcerated at the prison. In the complaint, Plaintiff states that he did not exhaust

his claims to the highest level of appeal through the inmate grievance procedure. 

Plaintiff states that he attempted to use the grievance process, but that the Appeals

Coordinator at the prison returned the appeal requesting additional documentation and

that he did not have the requested paperwork. Plaintiff apparently did not return the

appeal or attempt to exhaust his appeal beyond the First Level of Review. Complaint at

1-2.

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

Case 3:09-cv-04712-JSW Document 10 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 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 2

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, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996) (“PLRA”) provides: “No 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). Exhaustion is mandatory and not left to the

discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006). 

Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such

actions involve general conditions or particular episodes, whether they allege excessive

force or some other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in grievance

proceedings, such as money damages. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). The

exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of all available administrative

remedies. Woodford, 126 S. Ct. at 2387.

 The State of California provides its prisoners and parolees the right to appeal

administratively “any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by

those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15,

§ 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a

prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal review, (2) first

formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second formal level appeal

to the institution head or designee, and (4) third formal level appeal to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See Barry v Ratelle, 985 F.

Supp 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final

Case 3:09-cv-04712-JSW Document 10 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 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 3

decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under §

1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38. 

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. 2003). The court may dismiss a complaint for failure to exhaust where

the prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no exception to exhaustion applies.” Id.

at 1120. Here, Plaintiff concedes in his complaint that he has not exhausted his

administrative remedies (Complaint at 1-2), and no exception to exhaustion is alleged or

apparent in the complaint. Section 1997e(a) requires that Plaintiff present his claim to

each level of administrative review set forth above, including the Director’s level of

review, before raising the claim in a § 1983 complaint in federal court. 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). As it is clear from the

complaint that Plaintiff has not pursued all levels of administrative review available to

him, and there is no applicable exception to the exhaustion requirement, dismissal

without prejudice is appropriate. 

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

Plaintiff’s refiling his claim after all available administrative remedies have been

exhausted. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in favor of Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2010

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04712-JSW Document 10 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY F. O’LEARY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-04712 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 19, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Gary Francis O’Leary

P.O. Box 1050

T33173

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Dated: April 19, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-04712-JSW Document 10 Filed 04/19/10 Page 4 of 4