Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00603/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00603-4/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

JAMES HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-0603-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 March 6, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a

Recommendation herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

March 30, 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

Case 1:06-cv-00603-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 02/27/08 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

entire file, the court finds the Findings and Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, "exhaustion is

mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be

brought in court." Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 917-18 (2007). 

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, and "inmate are not

required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their

complaints." Id. at 921 (2007). In the objections, Plaintiff

cites to Jones v. Bock and contends that the Magistrate Judge

erred by recommending dismissal of this action at the screening

stage without requiring a motion to dismiss from Defendants. In

this case it clear from the face of Plaintiff's complaint, the

exhibits attached to the complaint, and the exhibits attached to

the objections that Plaintiff did not exhaust prior to filing

suit. "A prisoner's concession to nonexhaustion is a valid

grounds for dismissal . . . ." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1120 (9th Cir. 2003) Accordingly, this action must be dismissed

for Plaintiff's failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by

exhausting his claims prior to filing suit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed March 6, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2.This action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on

plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by not

exhausting his claims prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00603-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 2