Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02174/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02174-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN SMITH, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2174 DFL KJM P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, 

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the restrictions on religious services for Muslims at Mule Creek

State Prison.

In the complaint, plaintiff concedes that he has not exhausted state remedies; he

explains that “this is an emergency need, state process takes 8 to 10 months.”

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “Conditions of

confinement” subject to exhaustion has been defined broadly as “‘the effects of actions by

government officials on the lives of persons confined in prisons.’” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2);

Smith v. Zachary, 255 F.3d 446, 449 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 906 (2002); see also

Case 2:06-cv-02174-JKS-KJM Document 8 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Lawrence v. Goord, 304 F.3d 198, 200 (2d Cir. 2002). The exhaustion requirement is

mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

California prison regulations provide administrative procedures in the form of one

informal and three formal levels of review to address plaintiff’s claims. See Cal. Code Regs.

tit. 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.7. Administrative procedures generally are exhausted once a plaintiff has

received a “Director’s Level Decision,” or third level review, with respect to his issues or claims.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5.

Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim challenges prison conditions and is subject to

the mandatory exhaustion requirement of the PLRA. A prisoner’s concession of failure to

exhaust is a proper basis for dismissal. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir), cert. 

denied sub nom. Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

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 twenty

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: November 21, 2006. 

2 /smit2174.56

Case 2:06-cv-02174-JKS-KJM Document 8 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2