Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01604-1/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 Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604misc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERDINAND REYNOLDS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-1604 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

HEARING 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and the Warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff filed a

separate document entitled “amended ground two” on March 29, 2006. On October 6,

2006, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend in order for Plaintiff to

include both of his claims in an amended complaint. On October 16, 2006, the Court’s

order was returned by mail as “undeliverable” as Plaintiff was transferred to California

State Prison Los Angeles. On October 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court

entitled “emergency letter notice.” In his letter, Plaintiff describes events that occurred at

California State Prison Los Angeles in August 2006 through October 2006. 

**Original filed 10/20/06**

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 11 Filed 10/20/06 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 Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604misc 2

Plaintiff requests that the Court hold a hearing concerning these recent events. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint in his October 19, 2006 letter must first

be addressed through the administrative process available to Plaintiff. The Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (“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). Exhaustion is

mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). 

In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within the state prison

system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution,

(2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to

the institution head or designee, and (4) third level appeal to the Director of the California

Department of Corrections. 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). Id. at 1237-38. Courts do

not have discretion under § 1997e(a) to excuse exhaustion. Id. at 1825 n.5. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint concerning events at California State Prison

Los Angeles is not before the Court in the instant civil rights action. The Court has no

jurisdiction to order Los Angeles State Prison officials to comply with the Court’s orders

because they are not parties in the present action, nor does the Court’s jurisdiction, within

the Northern District of California, extend to the location of California State Prison Los

Angeles where Plaintiff is incarcerated. Any complaints concerning events at California

State Prison Los Angeles should be filed in the United States District Court for the

Central District of California. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a hearing is DENIED. The Clerk shall send a

copy of the Court’s October 6, 2006 order to Plaintiff at his new address. 

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 11 Filed 10/20/06 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 Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604misc 3

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, as directed in the Court’s October 6, 2006

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend, within thirty days of the date of this order. 

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

0/20/06

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 11 Filed 10/20/06 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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604misc 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Ferdinand Reynolds

D-11772

CSP -Los Angeles County

P.O. Box 44750 60th Street West

Lancaster, CA 93536

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 11 Filed 10/20/06 Page 4 of 4