Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00271-6/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

JOHN LISCHEFSKI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0271 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. SWEIGERT, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with

prison disciplinary and classification proceedings and by deliberate indifference to his safety. 

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to the unenumerated

portion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior

to suit. On November 16, 2005, plaintiff received the notice required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315

F.3d 1108 (9 Cir. 2003) with respect to the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for th

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

“Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides:

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 2:05-cv-00271-FCD-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/07/06 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

 The proof of service appended to the original complaint shows that it was delivered to 1

prison officials for mailing on February 4, 2005.

2

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

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.

This exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).”

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9 Cir. 2002). In McKinney, the court of appeals held th

that exhaustion must precede the filing of the complaint and that compliance with the statute is

not achieved by satisfying the exhaustion requirement during the course of an action. Id. 

The administrative grievance procedure for inmates in the California Department

of Corrections (“CDC”) has four levels: (1) informal complaint; (2) first formal appeal to an

appeals coordinator; (3) second formal appeal to the institution head, regional parole

administrator, or their designee; and (4) third level appeal to a designated representative of the

director under supervision of the chief, inmate appeals. 15 Cal.Code. Reg. § 3084.5. The

timelines for responding to inmate appeals at each level of review are as follows: (1) ten

working days at the informal level; (2) thirty working days at the first formal level; (2) twenty

working days at the second formal level or thirty days at that level if the first level of review is

waived; and (4) sixty days at the third and final level of administrative review. 15 Cal. Code

Reg. § 3084.6.

The claims at bar arise from events that allegedly occurred at California Medical

Facility (CMF) in January and February 2005. (See Amended Complaint, filed July 25, 2005, at

4-8.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with

his placement in administrative segregation from January 26, 2005 to February 10, 2005, and a

hearing held on February 2, 2005. The original complaint in this action was filed on February

10, 2005. 

1

Plaintiff signed his complaint only one week after the placement in administrative

segregation and two days after the hearing complained of herein. It is plain from the record

Case 2:05-cv-00271-FCD-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/07/06 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

3

before this court that plaintiff filed this action before he had exhausted administrative remedies. 

Moreover, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit cannot be cured during the

pendency of an action. See McKinney, supra. For these reasons, this action should be dismissed

without prejudice. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ February 9, 2006 motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies prior to suit.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 6, 2006.

12

lisc0271.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-00271-FCD-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3