Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02807/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02807-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PORTIS,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Sergeant EVANS, Correctional Officer

FESTUS, and Correctional Officer

ALVEREZ,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2807 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. 1983 challenging the conditions of his confinement. The complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide 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).

Compliance with the exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524

(2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739-40 & n.5 (2001). The administrative remedies

need not meet federal standards, nor need they be “plain, speedy and effective.” Porter, 534

U.S. at 524. 

The State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal

Case 3:07-cv-02807-WHA Document 19 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

administratively "any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those

individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). In order

to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed

through several levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC

602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4)

third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Id. § 3084.5;

Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). This satisfies the administrative

remedies exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. A prisoner need not

proceed further and also exhaust state judicial remedies. Jenkins v. Morton, 148 F.3d 257, 259-

60 (3d Cir. 1998). Nor is a prisoner required to comply with the California Tort Claims Act and

present his claims to the State Board of Control in order to fulfill the exhaustion requirement.

Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). 

Although nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a prisoner’s

concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, a claim may be dismissed without prejudice if it is clear

from the record that the prisoner concedes that he did not exhaust administrative remedies. Id.

Plaintiff states in his amended complaint that he did not appeal his claims to the highest

level of administrative appeal available to him (Amend. Compl. at 2). Thus, it is clear from the

amended complaint that plaintiff has conceded to not exhausting his claims. It therefore must

be dismissed. 

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new case after exhausting. The

clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\PORTIS807.DSM.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02807-WHA Document 19 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 2