Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01155-3/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

JESSE T. MOTEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-06-1155 OWW DLB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BASED ON

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST

PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was transferred to this Court on August 28, 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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

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).

Case 1:06-cv-01155-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 12/19/06 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

Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.

2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that Department of Corrections Custody staff assaulted him

that and then created false reports regarding the assault. He alleges these actions were taken because

he reported staff misconduct. He also alleges that he was denied medical treatment for a life

threatening illness. In his complaint, plaintiff concedes that although he filed an inmate appeal, the

appeals were improperly screened out. 

Under Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005), exhaustion occurred when an

inmate’s appeal was barred by the appeals coordinator on procedural grounds and “no further level

of appeal remained in the state prison’s internal appeals process.” However, on June 22, 2006, the

United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ngo and held that “proper

exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion requirement may not be

satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . appeal.” Woodford v. Ngo,

126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006) (emphasis added). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s

deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” Id. 

 Pursuant to the recent decision in Woodford, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to exhaust

the administrative remedies as mandated by section 1997e(a). 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 the available

administrative remedies 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-01155-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 12/19/06 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: December 18, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01155-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 3