Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00386-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEWIS SIMRIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00386-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

(Doc. 1)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Robert Lewis Simril (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

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

on March 9, 2007.

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

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

U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit, McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 1:07-cv-00386-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 06/18/07 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

27

28

2

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he did not file a grievance concerning the facts of

this case because it is not required. (Doc. 1, § B.) Plaintiff’s contention is incorrect. 

“[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in

court.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007) (citing Porter, 435 U.S. at 524). Because is

it clear from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that he did not exhaust 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 . . . .”). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice,

based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting his claims prior to

filing suit.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

thirty (30) 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 18, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00386-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 06/18/07 Page 2 of 2