Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01422/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01422-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA MARIE RIVERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER HULKABEE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01422-OWW-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 1)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Donna Marie Rivers (“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

13, 2006, while she was incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail.

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-01422-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 01/25/07 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

27

28

2

In this instance, plaintiff concedes in her complaint that although a grievance process was

available to her at the Fresno County Jail, she did not file a grievance. (Doc. 1, § II.) “[E]xhaustion

is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v.

Bock, Nos. 05-7058, 05-7142, 2007 WL 135890, *8 (Jan. 22, 2007) (citing Porter, 435 U.S. at 524).

Because is it clear from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that she 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 her 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

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: January 23, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01422-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2