Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00679-4/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

THOMAS M. COLT,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00679-AWI-SMS PC

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 10)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Thomas M. Colt (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on

June 2, 2002. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on October 16, 2006. On page two of

the form complaint, Plaintiff alleges that there is a grievance procedure available at his

institution, but that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies because other similarly

situated prisoners at Avenal State Prison have exhausted their administrative remedies regarding

the facts and claims raised in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. 1, Comp., § II.) 

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). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007);

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required

regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process,

Case 1:06-cv-00679-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 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

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct.

983 (2002). 

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code

Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (2008). The process is initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at §

3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first formal level,

second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Id. at §

3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of the event being appealed, and

the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). 

In order to satisfy section 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use the

available process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126

S.Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under

the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 918-19

(citing Porter, 435 U.S. at 524). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those

remedies need not meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” 

Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (quoting Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5). Because there is an appeals process

for prisoners to utilize and because it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that he did not

initiate and complete the process prior to filing suit, this action must be dismissed. 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 . . . .”). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting his

claims prior to filing suit.

This Finding and Recommendation 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 this Finding and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written

Case 1:06-cv-00679-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 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

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Finding and Recommendation.” 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: August 21, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00679-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 3 of 3