Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03009/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03009-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

KEITH DESMOND TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDGE MICHAEL SMITH, et al., 

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-3009 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On July 6, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison (“SQSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Upon initial review of the complaint, the Court dismissed three of the four

claims raised by plaintiff. As to the fourth claim, the Court found plaintiff failed to provide

sufficient information for the Court to determine whether a cognizable claim for relief was

stated, as plaintiff alleged therein he had been assaulted at SQSP by an “unknown prison

guard” (see Compl. at 4); plaintiff did not provide the name of the individual who allegedly

committed the assault, nor did he allege the date on which such injury occurred or the

surrounding circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to

amend as to said claim. Thereafter, plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint (“AC”). 

Having reviewed the allegations in the AC, the Court, for the reasons stated below,

Case 3:09-cv-03009-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 4
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

concludes the instant action must be dismissed.

As an initial matter, the Court finds the AC is subject to dismissal because plaintiff

has not provided therein sufficient information for his claim to go forward. Specifically,

plaintiff alleges that “around June 2007,” while plaintiff was being escorted either “to the

hospital or hole,” plaintiff was assaulted by two unknown officers. (AC at 3:10-21.) 

Plaintiff states the information about the responsible guards might be documented in “files”

or plaintiff’s records, the latter of which the guards allegedly lost. (Id.) While the AC

provides new information with respect to the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault,

plaintiff cannot proceed thereon as plaintiff still has not identified by name the guards

allegedly responsible for assaulting him, nor has he provided sufficient information with

respect to the date on which such assault occurred. The Court cannot investigate plaintiff’s

claim or otherwise provide plaintiff with the information he needs to prosecute his claim.

Consequently, as it appears plaintiff currently is unable to provide information necessary for

the instant matter to proceed, the AC will be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing

a new action should he be able to obtain the names of the guards who allegedly assaulted him

and the approximate date on which the incident occurred. 

Additionally, the AC is subject to dismissal because plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies before filing suit. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.

L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (“PLRA”) provides: “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). Exhaustion under § 1997(e)(a) is

mandatory and not left to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,

84 (2006). Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life,

whether such actions involve general conditions or particular episodes, whether they allege

excessive force or some other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in grievance

proceedings, such as money damages. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). An action

must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before

Case 3:09-cv-03009-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 4
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

1

In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner

must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal review, (2) first formal level

appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second formal level appeal to the institution

head or designee, and (4) third formal level appeal to the Director of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See CCR § 3084.5; Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F.

Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). A final decision from the Director’s level of review

satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. 

3

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

Because exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a complaint may be

dismissed for failure to exhaust only if such failure is obvious from the face of the complaint

and/or any attached exhibits, see Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003),

or where the prisoner has “conceded nonexhaustion” and “no exception to exhaustion

applies,” id. at 1120. 

Here, the Court finds it is obvious from the face of the AC that plaintiff did not

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing the instant action, and that no exception to

the exhaustion requirement applies to plaintiff’s claim. Specifically, in the form complaint

used by plaintiff to file the AC, there is a section requiring the party filing the action to

provide information with respect to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, and plaintiff,

in response to the question “Is there a grievance procedure available at the institution where

the events relating to your current complaint occurred?” checked “No.” (AC at 1:(I)(B).) 

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, however, each prison in California provides its prisoners and

parolees 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 (“CCR”), § 3084.1(a).1

 Further, as noted, plaintiff’s allegations in the AC reflect his

lack of knowledge as to basic facts concerning his claim, in particular, the names of the

guards who are alleged to have assaulted him and the date on which the incident occurred;

such information is precisely the type of information that ordinarily would be discovered

during the administrative grievance process. 

 Section 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires a prisoner-plaintiff to present his claims to each

available level of administrative review before raising those claims in a § 1983 complaint in

Case 3:09-cv-03009-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

federal court. As it is clear from the complaint that plaintiff has not exhausted his

administrative remedies, and there is no applicable exception to the exhaustion requirement,

the complaint, for such additional reason, is subject to dismissal without prejudice. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to

plaintiff’s refiling his claim in a new action after he has developed sufficient facts for his

claim to proceed, and after all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03009-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/15/10 Page 4 of 4