Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01958/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01958-3/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTHONY LEE ALLEN, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

P. SILVA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1958 AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this civil rights action challenging conditions of his prior 

confinement at High Desert State Prison (HDSP), under the authority of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Although plaintiff commenced this 

action while incarcerated at HDSP, he is now incarcerated at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional 

Facility (RCCF), operated by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 6. 

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF 

No. 9. However, because it is clear that this action must be dismissed without prejudice, see 

discussion below, the court will not rule on plaintiff’s request or impose payment of the statutory 

filing fee in this action. 

//// 

Case 2:14-cv-01958-AC Document 14 Filed 08/28/15 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

I. Legal Standards for Screening Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

In addition, the court must determine whether plaintiff exhausted his available 

administrative remedies on his claims before filing his complaint. The Prison Litigation Reform 

Act (PLRA) requires prisoners to exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before 

commencing a suit challenging prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Regardless of the relief 

sought, a prisoner must pursue a remedy through all levels of the prison’s grievance process “as 

long as some action can be ordered in response to the complaint.” Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 

926, 934 (9th Cir. 2005) (original emphasis) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). 

“Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural 

rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly 

structure on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-1 (2006) (fn. 

omitted). Administrative remedies must be exhausted before the complaint is filed. McKinney v. 

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) 

Although the PLRA does not require exhaustion “when circumstances render 

administrative remedies ‘effectively unavailable,’” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 

2010) (citation omitted), the Ninth Circuit requires demonstration of “a good-faith effort on the 

part of inmates to exhaust a prison’s administrative remedies as a prerequisite to finding remedies 

effectively unavailable,” Albino v. Baca, 697 F.3d 1023, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Sapp, 623 

F.3d at 823-24 (to fall within an exception to the exhaustion requirement, “a prisoner must show 

that he attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies but was thwarted”). 

II. The Allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

 Plaintiff sues HDSP Sergeant P. Silva for directing two female officers and other staff to 

conduct an unclothed body search of plaintiff in view of “free staff, meaning teachers, chaplains, 

Case 2:14-cv-01958-AC Document 14 Filed 08/28/15 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

cooks, etc.” ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff contends that the search was conducted in violation of 

CDCR regulation 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3287, which provides in pertinent part: 

All such inspections shall be conducted in a professional manner 

which avoids embarrassment or indignity to the inmate. Whenever 

possible, unclothed body inspections of inmates shall be conducted 

outside the view of others. 

Plaintiff also contends that his “8th Amendment right was violated.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff also 

generally names as defendants HDSP and CDCR. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: “If 

possible I would like the court to apoint (sic) a lawyer and then I would like the court to consider 

a hearing for this case.” Id. 

Plaintiff concedes without explanation that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies 

before filing his complaint. Id. at 2 (plaintiff answered “No” to the question, “Is the grievance 

process completed?”). 

III. Screening and Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice 

Plaintiff’s acknowledgement that he did not complete the grievance process before filing 

suit, without any assertion or statement from which it might be reasonably inferred that such 

remedies were unavailable, demonstrates that plaintiff’s claims were unexhausted when the 

complaint was filed. See Brown, 422 F.3d at 934 (exhaustion requires completing grievance 

process through all available levels of review). This acknowledged lack of exhaustion authorizes 

dismissal of this action without prejudice. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for 

dismissal, so long as no exception to exhaustion applies.”). Plaintiff has made no statement 

indicating that he made any effort to exhaust his administrative remedies, or that HDSP’s 

administrative grievance system was unavailable to him, so no exception applies. “There is no 

question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be 

brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). Accordingly, the complaint must be 

dismissed without prejudice to refiling once plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. 

 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the alleged failure of prison officials to follow state 

prison regulations or procedures does not state a federal civil rights violation under Section 1983. 

Case 2:14-cv-01958-AC Document 14 Filed 08/28/15 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 

4

See Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) (“To the extent that the 

violation of a state law amounts to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond 

that guaranteed by the federal Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.”); Galen v. County of 

Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Section 1983 requires [plaintiff] to demonstrate 

a violation of federal law, not state law.”) (citing Sweaney at 1391). As plaintiff concedes, 

unclothed body searches are expressly authorized by prison regulations, and such policy, standing 

alone, violates neither the Fourth nor Eighth Amendment because reasonably related to legitimate 

and nonpunitive penological goals. See Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 329-35 (9th Cir. 

1988) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)). Moreover, unless plaintiff can reasonably 

allege that the challenged search was maliciously conducted for punitive reasons, the Eighth 

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment does not apply. Finally, neither 

HDSP nor CDCR are appropriate defendants. See Regents of the University of California v. Doe, 

519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997) (Eleventh Amendment’s grant of state sovereign immunity bars 

damages suits against states and their agency). 

IV. Conclusion 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s complaint and this action are dismissed without prejudice; and 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

DATED: August 26, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-01958-AC Document 14 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 4