Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02239/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02239-0/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

DANIEL HARPER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2239 LEW JFM P 

vs.

L. WARD,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

“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

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 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S.

516, 524 (2002). Exhaustion must precede the filing of the complaint and that compliance with

Case 2:07-cv-02239-LEW -JFM Document 6 Filed 10/31/07 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

2

the statute is not achieved by satisfying the exhaustion requirement during the course of an

action. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199. 

 California’s Department of Corrections provides a four-step

grievance process for prisoners who seek review of an

administrative decision or perceived mistreatment. Within fifteen

working days of “the event or decision being appealed,” the inmate

must ordinarily file an “informal” appeal, through which “the

appellant and staff involved in the action or decision attempt to

resolve the grievance informally.” Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, §§

3084.5(a), 3084.6(c). [Footnote omitted.] If the issue is not

resolved during the informal appeal, the grievant next proceeds to

the first formal appeal level, usually conducted by the prison's

Appeals Coordinator. Id. §§ 3084.5(b), 3084.6(c). Next are the

second level, providing review by the institution's head or a

regional parole administrator, and the third level, in which review

is conducted by a designee of the Director of the Department of

Corrections. [Footnote omitted.] Id. § 3084.5(e)(1)-(2).

Brown v. Valoff, at 929-30.

In the complaint, plaintiff confirms he has not completed the grievance process.

(Id., at 4.) Plaintiff appended a copy of the prison grievance which was dated October 10, 2007,

only one day before plaintiff signed the instant complaint. It is apparent from the face of

plaintiff’s complaint that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as

required. Accordingly, plaintiff may not pursue his claims in federal court unless and until he

has completed the grievance process through the third level of review. See Woodford v. Ngo,

126 S.Ct. 2378, 2387 (2006). Because it is clear that plaintiff cannot cure this defect by

Case 2:07-cv-02239-LEW -JFM Document 6 Filed 10/31/07 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

3

amending his complaint, the complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend.n accordance

with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

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, 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).

DATED: October 30, 2007.

/001; harp2239.fte

Case 2:07-cv-02239-LEW -JFM Document 6 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 3