Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04071/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN KIETH BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELOY MEDINA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-04071 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Brian Kieth Barnett, a state prisoner, has filed a

pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted

Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff has not exhausted California's prison administrative

process, however. 

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) 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 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). Although once

within the discretion of the district court, 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 v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741

(2001). Similarly, exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner

Case 4:07-cv-04071-CW Document 8 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 5
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

suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances

or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or

some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532. PLRA's exhaustion

requirement requires "proper exhaustion" of available

administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S. Ct.

2378, 2387 (2006).

The State of California provides its prisoners the right to

appeal administratively "any departmental decision, action,

condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely

affecting their welfare." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). 

It also provides them the right to file appeals alleging misconduct

by correctional officers/officials. Id. § 3084.1(e). In order to

exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a

prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal:

(1) informal resolution; (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602

inmate appeal form; (3) second level appeal to the institution head

or designee; and (4) third level appeal to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections. Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F.

Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15,

§ 3084.5). A final decision from the Director's level of review

satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at

1237-38. 

 Non-exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense

which should be brought by defendants in an unenumerated motion to

dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b). Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). However, a

complaint may be dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust if a

Case 4:07-cv-04071-CW Document 8 Filed 05/20/08 Page 2 of 5
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

prisoner "conce[des] to nonexhaustion" and "no exception to

exhaustion applies." Id. at 1120. 

Here, Plaintiff concedes he has not exhausted his

administrative remedies to the Director's level of review. 

However, he alleges in his complaint that he submitted

administrative appeals as to all of his claims. He maintains that

his "efforts to exhaust administrative remedies were obstructed in

the (5) five instances the matters were sought to be raised via the

CDC administrative appeal process." (Compl. at 2.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to exhaust his

administrative remedies because prison officials did not respond to

his appeals. However, Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that the

administrative remedies process was inadequate is insufficient to

defeat dismissal of the claims for failure to exhaust. See White

v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593, 595 (6th Cir. 1997). According to

Plaintiff, some of his 602 appeals were "screened out" at the

informal level of appeal. (Compl. at 2-A-2-C, 3-J.) Plaintiff

also claims that his other 602 appeals were reviewed at the first

and/or second level before they were "cancelled." (Id.) Attached

to Plaintiff's complaint is one of his 602 appeal forms, log. no.

06-03432, which reached the second level of review and was

subsequently "cancelled" due to Plaintiff's "refusal to interview." 

Thus, although some claims allegedly went unanswered, an allegation

of overall inadequacy is not supported. Moreover, some of the

matters complained of occurred as far back as 2005, giving

Plaintiff more than adequate time to renew his attempt to exhaust

his administrative remedies before filing the present lawsuit. The

purposes of the exhaustion requirement include allowing the prison

Case 4:07-cv-04071-CW Document 8 Filed 05/20/08 Page 3 of 5
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Barnett4071.dismiss.wpd 4

to take appropriate responsive action, filtering out frivolous

cases, and creating administrative records which can be reviewed in

court proceedings. See Porter, 534 U.S. at 524-25. "Running a

prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires

expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources," Turner v.

Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987); absent substantial evidence to

the contrary, courts should defer to prison officials' judgment

regarding prison security and administration, id. at 86. 

Plaintiff's claims should be addressed by prison officials before

they are addressed by the federal courts. 

Plaintiff has not presented any extraordinary circumstances

which might compel that he be excused from complying with PLRA's

exhaustion requirement. Cf. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6 (courts

should not read "futility or other exceptions" into § 1997e(a)). 

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not exhausted

his administrative remedies and is not excused from so doing. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice to refiling after exhausting California's prison

administrative process. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (action must be dismissed without

prejudice unless prisoner exhausted available administrative

remedies before he filed suit, even if prisoner fully exhausts

while the suit is pending).

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with

this Order and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/20/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-04071-CW Document 8 Filed 05/20/08 Page 4 of 5
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Barnett4071.dismiss.wpd 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN K BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELOY MEDINA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04071 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 20, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Brian Keith Barnett T-38323

Facility 4A2R-005L

CSP-Corcoran SHU

4001 King Avenue

P.O. Box 3476

Corcoran, CA 93212-3476

Dated: May 20, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04071-CW Document 8 Filed 05/20/08 Page 5 of 5