Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03329/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03329-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

JORGE ROBLES JAUREGUI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3329 DAD P

vs.

JERRY W. WEINER, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 8, 2009, the court dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint as deficient and granted him leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff

filed his amended complaint on March 2, 2010. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e

to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983

of this title, 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 Ninth Circuit has held that “§1997e(a) requires exhaustion before the

filing of a complaint and that a prisoner does not comply with this requirement by exhausting

available remedies during the course of the litigation.” McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 

Case 2:09-cv-03329-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 08/03/10 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

1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002). See also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) (“”[A]

district court must dismiss a case without prejudice ‘when there is no presuit exhaustion ,’ even if

there is exhaustion while suit is pending.”)

In his amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that he exhausted the inmate appeal

process with respect to the claim he attempt to present here on February 8, 2010, when his appeal

at the director’s level was denied. Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on December 1, 2009. 

Thus, plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies before he commenced this action. 

Therefore, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice so that

plaintiff may file a new action.

On January 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to hold this action in abeyance until

he had completed the exhaustion process at the director’s level of review. The motion will be

denied as defective. As the court indicated above, exhaustion of administrative remedies must be

completed prior to the filing of a civil rights action. Therefore, the court lacks authority to grant

a stay and abeyance for exhaustion purposes.

On January 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that he be evaluated by an

outside physician. That motion will be denied in light of the court’s recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 8, 2010 motion to hold this action in abeyance (Doc. No. 9),

is denied as defective;

2. Plaintiff’s January 25, 2010 motion to be evaluated by an outside physician

(Doc. No. 10), is denied; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign this action to a District

Judge.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to its filing. 42

Case 2:09-cv-03329-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 08/03/10 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

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 

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 fourteen

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: August 2, 2010.

DAD:4

jaur3329.fte

Case 2:09-cv-03329-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3