Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02879/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02879-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RABE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON

MAILROOM, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2879 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay

State Prison in Crescent City, California, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 regarding the conditions of his confinement at San Quentin State Prison. In the

complaint, Plaintiff states that he has not completed the process of exhausting his

administrative appeals with regard to the instant complaint because his inmate appeal is

“still being processed.” Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without

prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint after he has completely exhausted the

administrative remedies available to him.

DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides 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). 

Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. 

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

Case 3:07-cv-02879-TEH Document 3 Filed 06/29/07 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

739 (2001)). "Prisoners must now exhaust all 'available' remedies, not just those that

meet federal standards." Id. Even when the relief sought cannot be granted by the

administrative process, i.e., monetary damages, a prisoner must still exhaust

administrative remedies. Id. at 2382-83 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 734). 

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

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

dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by the time the complaint is actually filed). 

Although exhaustion is an affirmative defense, the Court may dismiss a complaint

sua sponte for failure to exhaust if it is clear from the face of the complaint and attached

exhibits that Plaintiff has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement. Wyatt v. Terhune,

315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-30

(9th Cir. 1984) (although running of statute of limitations is affirmative defense, it may

be grounds for sua sponte dismissal where defense is complete and obvious from face of

the pleadings). 

The State of California provides its inmates 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, §

3084.1(a). It also provides its inmates the right to file administrative appeals alleging

misconduct by correctional officers. See 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. Id. § 3084.5;

Case 3:07-cv-02879-TEH Document 3 Filed 06/29/07 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 3

Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). This satisfies the

administrative remedies exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. 

Here, Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that he did not exhaust his claims through

all levels of the state prison administrative grievance system. See Complaint at 2 (docket

no. 1). Because exhausting the claims now would not cure the failure to do so before

filing suit, the complaint must be DISMISSED without prejudice. See McKinney, 311

F.3d at 1199. Plaintiff may file a new complaint, alleging the same subject matter of the

substantive complaint, if and when he exhausts the administrative remedies available to

him. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in accordance with this order.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 06/28/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02879-TEH Document 3 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 3