Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03135/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03135-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT McCOY, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

M COX, et al,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 03-3135 VRW (PR)

ORDER

Per order filed on November 15, 2004, the court granted defendants'

motion to dismiss plaintiff's action for failure to exhaust available administrative

remedies under 42 USC § 1997e(a) as to all claims before filing suit. The court

found that although the complaint contains five distinct claims – (1) Correctional

Officer M Cox filed a false disciplinary report against plaintiff in retaliation for

plaintiff complaining to Cox’s supervisor; (2) Correctional Lieutenant R J Bass

violated plaintiff’s due process rights at the hearing on the disciplinary report; (3)

Chief Deputy Warden E J Caden and CDC Chief of Inmate Appeals N Grannis

violated plaintiff’s due process rights in their responses to his appeal of his guilty

finding; (4) Warden A A Lamarque failed to train staff adequately regarding

handling of inmates in mental health program; and (5) Bass imposed excessive

punishment after finding plaintiff guilty – plaintiff exhausted available

Case 3:03-cv-03135-JW Document 37 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 2
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

administrative remedies with respect to only one of these claims, claim (2). 

Pursuant to the law of a majority of the circuits at the time, the court dismissed

the entire action without prejudice and instructed plaintiff that he could refile his

complaint after exhausting California’s prison administrative process as to all

claims or, alternatively, file a new complaint containing only exhausted claims. 

Plaintiff appealed.

Per order filed on February 28, 2007, the Ninth Circuit vacated the order

of dismissal and remanded for reconsideration in light of Jones v Bock, 127 S Ct

910 (2007). In Jones, the Supreme Court resolved a split in the circuits by

holding that an inmate's compliance with the exhaustion requirement as to some,

but not all, claims does not warrant dismissal of the entire action. See 127 S Ct at

925-26. The court instead should dismiss the unexhausted claims and permit the

inmate to proceed with the exhausted ones. See id. 

In light of Jones, claims (1), (3), (4) and (5) are dismissed because none of

them were exhausted prior to the filing of this action. See also Vaden v

Summerhill, 449 F3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir 2006) (exhaustion must be satisfied

prior to filing). This action may proceed with respect to claim (2) only.

In order to expedite these proceedings, defendants shall file a motion for

summary judgment, or other dispositive motion, within 90 days of this order. 

Plaintiff shall file an opposition, or notice of non-opposition, within 30 days of

receiving defendants' motion, and defendants shall file a reply to any opposition

within 15 days of receiving a copy of the opposition. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\CR.03\McCoy1.or4.wpd

Case 3:03-cv-03135-JW Document 37 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 2