Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02445/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02445-0/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Graham445disexh.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WYDELL GRAHAM, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-2445 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. In his

complaint, plaintiff concedes that he has not filed any administrative grievances. The court will

DISMISS the instant complaint 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 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).

*E-FILED - 8/2/10*

Case 5:10-cv-02445-RMW Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Graham445disexh.wpd 2

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.

The State of California provides its prisoners and parolees 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). In order

to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through

several levels of appeal: (1) informal review, (2) first formal written appeal on a CDC 602

inmate appeal form, (3) second formal level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4)

third formal level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

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

Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the

exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38. 

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, Plaintiff

concedes in his complaint that he has not appealed to the highest level of appeal available to him. 

(Compl. at 2.) He states that the reason he did not present his claims through the grievance

Case 5:10-cv-02445-RMW Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Graham445disexh.wpd 3

procedure is because “tort claim was filed.” (Id.) After reviewing the complaint, it appears that

plaintiff had filed a state lawsuit against one of the named defendants regarding the instant

allegations under state law claims. 

However, plaintiff does not identify a single grievance to indicate that he has made a

good faith effort to seek and exhaust administrative remedies. Furthermore, none of his reasons

are exceptions to exhaustion to excuse him from 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

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

(footnote omitted). 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: RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

7/30/10

Case 5:10-cv-02445-RMW Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3