Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05727/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05727-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR A. SANCHEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DETENTION OFFICERS OF KERN 

 COUNTY SHERIFF’S LERDO JAIL,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5727 OWW SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO EXHAUST

REMEDIES AND FAILING TO STATE A

CLAIM FOR RELIEF UPON WHICH RELIEF

CAN BE GRANTED (Doc. 1.) 

 Victor A. Sanchez Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

Case 1:04-cv-05727-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 10/14/05 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

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff states that during a transfer from Kern County Sheriff’s Department to Wasco

State prison Plaintiff was beat up by officers. Plaintiff is unclear as to why he was assaulted and

therefore, alleges no specific constitutional violation. Further, although an administrative

process was available, Plaintiff concedes that he did not file an appeal or administrative

grievance concerning the events at issue in this action. 

C. EXHAUSTION

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), “[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). The section 1997e(a)

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435

U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of

the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner,

532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies

need not meet federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534

U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5). 

According to the Ninth Circuit, there are two principal policies behind the administrative

exhaustion rule: The first is to protect an administrative agency's authority by giving the agency

the first opportunity to resolve a controversy before a court intervenes in the dispute. Ngo v.

Case 1:04-cv-05727-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 10/14/05 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

Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2005). The second is to promote judicial efficiency by

either resolving the dispute outside of the courts, or by producing a factual record that can aide

the court in processing a plaintiff's claim. Id. Thus, exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit

and Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

As noted above, Plaintiff concedes that he filed no administrative remedy with respect to

the allegations made in this Complaint. It appears that Plaintiff did file a complaint with Kern

County and an investigation was performed, however, the Complaint is insufficient to

demonstrate exhaustion of the remedies available within the institution. Because is it clear from

the face of plaintiff’s complaint that he did not exhaust the available administrative remedies

prior to filing suit, this action must be dismissed. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315

F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid grounds

for dismissal . . . .”). 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Even had Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court would be required to

dismiss the complaint as it fails to state a claim for relief. Although Plaintiff states that he was

beat up, Plaintiff ails to link any named Defendant to an act or omission giving rise to a

constitutional violation. Moreover, Plaintiff does not state what constitutional rights were

violated. 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

Case 1:04-cv-05727-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 10/14/05 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

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

under section 1983 and has further conceded that he has not exhausted his administrative

remedies. Thus, therefore leave to amend should not be granted and the Court RECOMMENDS

that this action be dismissed in its entirety.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS after being served with a

copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court

and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05727-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 10/14/05 Page 4 of 4