Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02729/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02729-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re

CHRISTOPHER ROWLAND, 

Plaintiff.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-2729 EMC (pr)

ORDER

This action was opened on June 18, 2015, when the Court received from Christopher

Rowland a letter concerning his prison conditions. On that date, the Court notified Mr. Rowland in

writing that his action was deficient in that he had not attached a complaint and had not filed an in

forma pauperis application. The Court further notified him that this action would be dismissed if he

did not submit a complaint within twenty-eight days. Mr. Rowland has sent to the court a letter

asking two questions. His first question is whether “the special master investigator (Federal)

investigator will investigate” if he files a complaint. Docket # 5. (In a later letter, Docket # 8), he

asked for the FBI to investigate his claims.) The short answer is that the Court adjudicates disputes

that parties have investigated; the Court does not conduct investigations nor will it order the FBI or a

special master investigator to investigate on a plaintiff’s behalf. 

Mr. Rowland’s second question is whether he can have an extension of the deadline to file

his complaint and/or to exhaust his administrative remedies and/or to excuse the exhaustion

requirement. See Docket # 5, # 8. The answer to that question is rather complicated. Mr. Rowland

should not file a complaint until after he has exhausted his administrative remedies because the

general rule is that an action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted his available

administrative remedies before he 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 Vaden v. Summerhill, 449

Case 3:15-cv-02729-EMC Document 10 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

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). Since Mr. Rowland has not yet exhausted administrative

remedies, if he decides that he will file an action after he exhausts his administrative remedies, he

should immediately send to the Court a short letter stating that he did not intend to file an action yet. 

If he sends that letter, he can avoid a filing fee in this action and instead will only owe one filing fee

when he files his new action. Otherwise, he will owe a filing fee in this action, even if it is

dismissed due to nonexhaustion of administrative remedies or failure to file a complaint or in forma

pauperis application. And if this action is dismissed for nonexhaustion, he will owe another filing

fee when he files a second action after exhausting administrative remedies. The Court cannot

excuse the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement at this time because the issue is not

yet ripe, in that there is not even a complaint on file. If, notwithstanding this information, Mr.

Rowland still wants to file a complaint in this action, he must file that complaint and a completed in

forma pauperis application no later than August 24, 2015. No further extensions should be

expected.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02729-EMC Document 10 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 2