Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05517/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05517-0/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK LITTLE, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5517 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

vs. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

T. REYNOLDS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action was transferred to this Court on April 2, 2004. In his amended complaint,

plaintiff alleges that although there was an inmate appeals process available at hisinstitution and he did

file a grievance, he did not complete the grievance process. 

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). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner

suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 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).

Case 1:04-cv-05517-AWI -DLB Document 11 Filed 12/28/06 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

Based on plaintiff’s concession that he did complete the grievance process, the court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice. 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 . . . .”).

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: December 27, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05517-AWI -DLB Document 11 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 2