Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06257/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06257-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN RAMON TUGGLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAYLOR, licensed vocational nurse, 

Defendant. /

No. C 07-6257 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Steven Ramon Tuggle, formerly incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and

currently incarcerated at California State Prison - Corcoran, filed this pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Tuggle alleged that a licensed vocational

nurse at Pelican Bay harassed and retaliated against him on February 22, 2007 by giving him

a medication to which he was allergic. His complaint is now before the court for initial

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2).

There is an exhaustion problem in this action. "No action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

Case 3:07-cv-06257-MHP Document 6 Filed 07/25/08 Page 1 of 3
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

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies

as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 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." See

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). 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 and Rehabilitation. See id. § 3084.5; Woodford v.

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85-86 (2006); Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). 

Nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is usually an affirmative defense, but a complaint may be

dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust if a prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and

“no exception to exhaustion applies." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

2003).

The materials submitted by Tuggle plainly show he did not satisfy the requirement

that he exhaust administrative remedies. On the form complaint, Tuggle checked the box

indicating that he had exhausted at the highest level and directed the reader to "please see

exhibit 'A'" regarding his exhaustion at the third formal level. Exhibit "A" is a November 5,

2007 letter from the inmate appeals branch of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation returning Tuggle's inmate appeal because the appeal had not complied with

the requirement that the inmate had to submit the appeal within 15 working days of the event

or decision being appealed or receiving a lower level decision. See Complaint, Exh. A. In

short, the director's level decision was to reject the appeal as untimely and did not reach the

merits of the appeal.

A prisoner cannot satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement "by filing of an untimely

or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal." Ngo, 548 U.S. at

83-84. The PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion. Id. at 84, 93. A

prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable

Case 3:07-cv-06257-MHP Document 6 Filed 07/25/08 Page 2 of 3
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

procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court. See

id. at 90-91. Tuggle did not. His untimely appeal did not satisfy the requirement that he

exhaust administrative remedies before filing his action in federal court. For the foregoing

reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Tuggle's motion for an extension of time to file an in forma pauperis application is

GRANTED. (Docket # 3.) The court has treated his in forma pauperis application as timely

filed.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2008 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06257-MHP Document 6 Filed 07/25/08 Page 3 of 3