Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01378/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01378-1/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

DANIEL ROWE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARICH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01378-REC-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE

AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(Docs. 1 and 9)

Plaintiff Daniel Rowe (“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 November 1,

2005. (Doc. 1.) On April 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice informing the court that his inmate appeal

has been exhausted. (Doc. 9.) Included with the notice is a copy of the inmate appeal, which was

denied at the Director’s level of review on February 22, 2006. (Id.) 

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).

“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards,

Case 1:05-cv-01378-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/23/06 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

nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S.

at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid grounds for dismissal . . . .” Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003). In this instance, plaintiff did not exhaust his claim

prior to filing suit. For that reason, this action must be dismissed. The dismissal shall be without

prejudice to refiling. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

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: May 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01378-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2