Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06182/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06182-7/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

LARRY D. KING, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CDC, Et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,

AND DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

(Docs. 24 and 33)

Plaintiff Larry D. King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 Rule 72-302.

On May 22, 1007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss be

granted and the complaint be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to

exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 36 Filed 08/06/07 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

Recommendations were to be filed by June 20, 2007. On June 5,

2007, Plaintiff filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 provides that “[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). Here,

Defendant contends Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative

remedies. Plaintiff maintains in his objections, as he did in

his opposition to Defendant’s motion, that his last appeal was

improperly rejected as being untimely. Plaintiff argues he was

unable to file a timely director’s level appeal because he was

moved to a new prison and there was a delay in receiving the

second level denial. 

It is unnecessary to determine if the director’s level

appeal was improperly rejected or if an improper rejection even

satisfies the exhaustion requirement. The evidence before the

court reveals that Plaintiff did not file the direction’s level

appeal until after he filed this lawsuit. Any doubt about whether

it was sufficient for a prisoner to exhaust during the pendency

of the suit ended with the decision in McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198 (9 Cir. 2002). In McKinney, the court joined eight th

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 36 Filed 08/06/07 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

other circuits in ruling that a district court must dismiss an

action involving prison conditions when the prisoner did not

exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. McKinney,

311 F.3d at 1199. Plaintiff filed this action on September 2,

2003. Plaintiff did not file his director’s level appeal until

October 5, 2003. Thus, even if the Court agreed that the 

director’s level rejection of the appeal as being untimely

completed the exhaustion requirement, Plaintiff’s filing of this

action before the director’s level appeal was filed and denied

was improper.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 22, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed March 5, 2007, is 

GRANTED; and,

3. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 36 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 3