Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00381/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00381-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DEXTER BROOKS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0381 LKK PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 11, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to plaintiff that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In his objections, plaintiff states he has now exhausted his administrative

remedies as to his outdoor exercise claims. However, exhaustion must precede the filing of the

complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Compliance with that statute is not achieved by satisfying the

exhaustion requirement during the pendency of an action. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

Case 2:06-cv-00381-LKK -PAN Document 13 Filed 07/07/06 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

1

 Plaintiff is now free to bring a new action raising those claims for which he has

exhausted administrative remedies. However, plaintiff may wish to exhaust his single cell

claims first so he may raise them all in one action.

2

1199 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, plaintiff concedes in his objections that he has failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies with regard to his claim that he is entitled to single cell status based

on his medical needs.1 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 11, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s February 23, 2006 motion for preliminary injunction is denied

without prejudice; and

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. 

DATED: July 6, 2006.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/broo0381.805

Case 2:06-cv-00381-LKK -PAN Document 13 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2