Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

KEITH WAYNE CANDLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J.W. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________

_ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1081 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming as defendants various officials of Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and alleging said defendants exposed him to pepper-spray in the

course of a nearby cell extraction. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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. 

See 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. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 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

Case 3:05-cv-01081-MMC Document 4 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The

exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and not merely directory. Porter v.

Nussle , 122 S. Ct. 983, 988 (2002). All available remedies must be exhausted; those remedies

"need not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation

omitted). Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance proceedings, notably

money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741

(2001). Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether

such actions involve general conditions or particular episodes, and whether they allege

excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 122 S. Ct. at 992. 

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 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. See 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. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct 50 (2003). A concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for

dismissal, provided no exception to exhaustion applies. Id. at 1120. Here, plaintiff concedes

in his complaint that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. By way of explanation,

he states that “irreparable harm and damage will accrue if [he is] required to exhaust” and that

exhaustion is “inadequate and futile.” There is no “irreparable harm” exception to the

exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a), however, and plaintiff’s conclusory statement that

Case 3:05-cv-01081-MMC Document 4 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

exhaustion would be “futile” does not excuse the exhaustion requirement. See Booth, 532 U.S.

at 741 n.6 (stating courts should not read "futility or other exceptions" into § 1997e(a)). 

Rather, § 1997e(a) requires that plaintiff present his claims to each level of administrative

review set forth above, including the Director’s level of review, before raising those claims in

a § 1983 complaint in federal court. As it is clear from the complaint that plaintiff has not

pursued all levels of administrative grievances 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 refiling

after all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. 

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and no fee is due. 

This order terminates Docket No. 2 and any pending motions.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2005

 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01081-MMC Document 4 Filed 05/25/05 Page 3 of 3