Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03351/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03351-0/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT M. GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPULVEDA, Director; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3351 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Robert M. Gonzales, who was then an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro

se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged in his complaint that he was subjected

to excessive force at the jail on May 19, 2007 when he was handcuffed too tightly and without

regard for his complaints of back pain. His complaint is now before the court for initial review

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 which 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 must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:07-cv-03351-SI Document 11 Filed 02/01/08 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

2

A prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil rights action. "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). Nonexhaustion

under § 1997e(a) is usually an affirmative defense, but 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." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

The complaint and attachments plainly show that Gonzales did not exhaust his

administrative remedies before filing this action. He offered two reasons for his non-exhaustion,

but neither persuades the court to excuse the exhaustion requirement. 

Gonzales first contended that he did not need to exhaust because monetary relief was not

available in the inmate appeal system. He cited to the Ninth Circuit's 1999 Rumbles decision,

which was a reference to Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 1999). Gonzales relied

on outdated law: Rumbles was overruled by Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). The

Supreme Court has determined that exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now

mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). All available remedies must now 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, 532 U.S.

at 741. Since 2001, prisoners have not been able to avoid the administrative exhaustion

requirement by requesting relief not available in the appeals system, such as monetary relief. 

Gonzales also argued that exhaustion was futile because there was "'no' answer in sight."

Complaint, p. 2A. The perceived slowness of the system did not excuse the exhaustion

requirement because the remedies need not be "speedy." Porter, 534 U.S. at 524. Gonzales

prepared his civil rights complaint three weeks after the incident complained of and mailed his

complaint to this court just one month after the incident complained of, and did not give the

appeals process time to work. There may be cases in which the delay in receiving an appeal

response is so long that exhaustion should be excused, but a case with a one-month delay simply

Case 3:07-cv-03351-SI Document 11 Filed 02/01/08 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

3

is not one of them. That exhaustion was not a futile endeavor is clear from the record, as

Gonzales later filed document showing that his appeal did receive a response, albeit not until

after this action was filed. (Docket # 9.) The fact that Gonzales apparently exhausted

administrative remedies after filing this action does not assist him. An action must be dismissed

unless the prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if

the prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is pending. See Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047,

1050-51 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Gonzales conceded that he had not completed the jail's inmate appeal process and his

explanations for why he had not done so did not show that he came within any exception to the

exhaustion requirement. This action therefore is dismissed without prejudice to Gonzales filing

a new action after he exhausts his administrative remedies for all claims asserted therein. The

in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2, # 4.) The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2008 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03351-SI Document 11 Filed 02/01/08 Page 3 of 3