Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03742/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03742-0/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 1

 Stanley-Bey has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (See Docket No. 8.)

Case No. C 15-3742 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARK ANTHONY STANLEY-BEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 15-3742 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

On August 17, 2015, Mark Arthur Stanley-Bey, proceeding pro se, filed a letter which

initiated this action.1 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 

For the reasons that follow, the court DISMISSES this action without prejudice.

ANALYSIS

Stanley-Bey claims that San Quentin State Prison defendants improperly treated wounds

that he sustained on April 8, 2015. In the complaint, Stanley-Bey states that he has not pursued

his claims all the way through the last level of administrative review available to him. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that

“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any

Case 5:15-cv-03742-PSG Document 15 Filed 11/24/15 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

 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

3

 See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739-40 & n.5

(2001). 

4

 Porter, 534 U.S. at 524. 

5

 See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). 

6

 See id.

7

 See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). 

8

 See id.; Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 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

Case No. C 15-3742 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 2

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”2

 Compliance with the exhaustion

requirement is mandatory.3 The administrative remedies need not meet federal standards, nor

need they be “plain, speedy and effective.”4

Although nonexhaustion under Section 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a prisoner’s

concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal.5 Accordingly, a claim may be

dismissed without prejudice if it is clear from the record that the prisoner concedes that he did

not exhaust administrative remedies.6 The Ninth Circuit has interpreted Section 1997e(a) to

mean that 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.7

Here, it is obvious from the face of the complaint that Stanley-Bey did not exhaust his

administrative remedies, and no exception to exhaustion is alleged or apparent in the complaint. 

Stanley-Bey concedes that he did not present his claims for review completely through the

prison’s grievance procedure. Rather, he claims that, at the time he filed his federal complaint,

he was waiting from a response from the first level of appeal. Because Stanley-Bey did not

exhaust his claims prior to filing this action, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 

Because the lack of exhaustion is clear from the face of the complaint, the case must be

dismissed without prejudice to re-filing after all administrative appeals have been exhausted.8

Case 5:15-cv-03742-PSG Document 15 Filed 11/24/15 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 dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by the time the complaint is actually filed). 

Case No. C 15-3742 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 3

CONCLUSION

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge

11/24/2015

Case 5:15-cv-03742-PSG Document 15 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3