Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00469/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00469-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE L. REED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT K. WONG, Warden, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-10-0469 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I

Plaintiff, a prisoner presently incarcerated at Kern

Valley State Prison in Delano, California, and frequent litigant in

federal court, has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials at San Quentin State

Prison violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated

at that facility. Plaintiff concedes, in both his original and

amended complaints, that he has not completed administrative

exhaustion with respect to his claim. Doc. #1 at 2; Doc. #10 at 2. 

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-00469-TEH Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 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 2

II

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 [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). Although once

within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in prisoner

cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534

U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Broadly stated, the purpose of the PLRA

exhaustion requirement is to “afford[] corrections officials time

and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the

initiation of a federal case.” Id. at 525. 

California provides its prisoners the right to appeal

administratively “any departmental decision, action, condition or

policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their

welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). To exhaust

available administrative remedies within this system,

“a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: 

(1) informal resolution; (2) formal written appeal on a [California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)] 602 inmate

appeal form; (3) second level appeal to the institution head or

designee and (4) third level appeal to the director of the [CDCR].” 

Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997); Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5. 

The first level of appeal, or informal resolution, is

Case 3:10-cv-00469-TEH Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 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 3

bypassed when the prisoner complains of alleged misconduct by a

departmental peace officer. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §

3084.5(a)(3)(G). The second level of appeal “shall be completed

prior to the appellant filing at the third formal level.” Id. at §

3084.5(c). A final decision from the director’s level of review

satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at §

3084.1(a).

Failure to exhaust under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative

defense. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), 

cert. denied, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). A defendant has the burden of

raising and proving the absence of exhaustion in an unenumerated

12(b) motion. Id. at 1119–20. But if the prisoner concedes in the

complaint that he or she did not exhaust administrative remedies

prior to filing suit, the action may be dismissed without prejudice. 

See id. at 1120 (if court concludes that the prisoner has not

exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal

without prejudice).

Here, Plaintiff states with respect to his claim against

San Quentin State Prison officials that he filed an administrative

appeal, but that it “has not yet made it” to the third formal level. 

Doc. #10 at 2. Because Plaintiff has conceded nonexhaustion, the

action is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new case after

Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies. See

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-00469-TEH Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 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 4

The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions as

moot, enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 06/14/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.10\Reed-10-469-dismiss-exhaustion.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-00469-TEH Document 11 Filed 06/15/10 Page 4 of 4