Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01464-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CALDERON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01464-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Michael Stewart (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October

2, 2006. 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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). Prisoners must complete the prison’s

administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief

offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the

complaint stated. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion

requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532

(2002), and exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit, McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01464-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 04/12/07 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

Inmates must submit appeals “within 15 working days of the event or decision being

appealed . . . .” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.6(c). The event at issue in this action allegedly

occurred on or around September 29, 2005, and plaintiff submitted an inmate appeal on November

17, 2005. (Doc. 1, pgs. 2, 20.) Plaintiff’s inmate appeal was screened out as untimely on December

15, 2005. (Id., pg. 32.) Plaintiff challenged the screening decision and it was upheld on March 14,

2006. (Id., pg. 28.) Plaintiff then attempted to submit the appeal to the Director’s Level for review

but it was returned to him on May 19, 2006, because there was no second level response. (Id., pg.

18.)

“[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought

in court.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007) (citing Porter, 435 U.S. at 524). “Proper

exhaustion[, which] demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural

rules . . . .” is required, Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006), and may not be satisfied “by

filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal,” id. at 2382. In this instance,

plaintiff did not file his appeal within fifteen working days of the incident of alleged excessive force

and his appeal was screened out as untimely. This constitutes a failure to exhaust. Id. Because it

is clear from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that he did not exhaust the available administrative

remedies prior to filing suit, this action must be dismissed. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune,

315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid grounds

for dismissal . . . .”). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting his claim

prior to filing suit.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01464-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 04/12/07 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 11, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01464-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 3