Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00865/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00865-0/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

Order to of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Russell00865_dis-exh.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LUTHER RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPT., et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-00865 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the San Francisco County Jail proceeding pro se,

filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the San Francisco

Police and Sheriff Departments and their employees. In his complaint, Plaintiff states that

he did not file present his claims for review through the grievance procedure.

Consequently, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

Case 5:10-cv-00865-JF Document 4 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Order to of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Russell00865_dis-exh.wpd 2

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however, must

be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996) (“PLRA”) provides: “No 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). Exhaustion is mandatory and not left to the

discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). Exhaustion is

a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such actions involve

general conditions or particular episodes, whether they allege excessive force or some

other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in grievance proceedings, such as 

money damages. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). The exhaustion

requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of all available administrative remedies. Ngo,

548 U.S. at 93.

Because exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a complaint may

be dismissed for failure to exhaust only if failure to exhaust is obvious from the face of

the complaint and/or any attached exhibits. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20

(9th Cir. 2003). The Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to exhaust where the

prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no exception to exhaustion applies.” Id. at

1120. Here, it is obvious from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies, (Complaint at 2), and no exception to exhaustion is alleged or

apparent in the complaint. He states that the reason he did not present his claims for

review through the grievance procedure was because he was “afraid it would be thrown

away . (Id.) This does not excuse the PLRA’s requirement of “proper exhaustion” under

Ngo: “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other

critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without

Case 5:10-cv-00865-JF Document 4 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Order to of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Russell00865_dis-exh.wpd 3

imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” 548 U.S. at 90-91

(footnote omitted). 

Section 1997e(a) requires that Plaintiff present his claim to each level of

administrative review available to him before raising the claim in a § 1983 complaint in

federal court. As it is clear from the complaint that Plaintiff has not “properly exhausted”

his claims by pursuing all levels of administrative review available to him and there is no

applicable exception to the exhaustion requirement, dismissal without prejudice is

appropriate. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to

Plaintiff’s refiling his claim after all available administrative remedies have been

exhausted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

4/22/10

Case 5:10-cv-00865-JF Document 4 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LUTHER RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPT, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV10-00865 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Eric Luther Russell 2425113

San Francisco County Jail

P.O. Box 67

Cell #5

San Bruno, CA 94066

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

4/30/10

4/30/10

Case 5:10-cv-00865-JF Document 4 Filed 04/30/10 Page 4 of 4