Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00852/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00852-5/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 The Court rejected the Report and Recommendation insofar as it found Warden

Ryan had qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff’s first claim.

06cv852

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY L. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. E. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv852 L (RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF [doc. #56]

On July 10, 2008, the Court adopted in part the Report and Recommendation of the

magistrate judge.1

 [doc. # 53.] Judgment was entered on that same date. The Judgment noted

that defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and to strike plaintiff’s request

for punitive damages were granted with prejudice. [doc. #54.] 

Plaintiff filed a “Rule 60(a) motion for relief from clerical mistake or error” on July 25,

2008. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that: “[t]he court may correct a clerical

mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment,

order, or other part of the record.” Rather than the correction of a clerical mistake, plaintiff

seeks clarification of “whether Plaintiff’s cause of action against defendant Ryan is denied with

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 57 Filed 08/04/08 Page 1 of 3
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 06cv852

prejudice, for failure to exhaust; or [] whether Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed ‘without prejudice’

for failure to exhaust.” (Plaintiff’s motion at 4.) As previously noted, the Court dismissed

plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice.

To clarify for plaintiff, his first claim against Warden Ryan was dismissed with prejudice

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Before the Supreme Court decision in Woodford

v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378 (2006), Ninth Circuit law directed the district court to dismiss a

complaint without prejudice to allow the prisoner a chance to exhaust his administrative

remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If the district court

concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal of the claim without prejudice.”). But Woodford forecloses any untimely exhaustion. 

The exhaustion requirement may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise

procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Woodford, 126 S. Ct. at 2382. 

Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural

rules. Id. at 2386. Other district courts within the Ninth Circuit have suggested that it is

inappropriate for the district court to dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend if it is too late

to exhaust. See Janoe v. Garcia, 2007 WL 1110914, at *8-9 (S.D. Cal. March 29, 2007)

(dismissing Complaint with prejudice where a prisoner did not pursue the three-step formal

review process, and had no time to exhaust); see also Regan v. Frank, 2007 WL 106537, at *4-5

(D. Haw. Jan.9, 2007) (dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice for failure to timely exhaust

administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) prior to filing suit). California

administrative appeals process requires that prisoner administrative appeals be submitted within

fifteen days of receiving an adverse determination. Armstrong admittedly did not exhaust his

administrative remedies, and under Woodford , it is impossible for plaintiff to cure this defect. 

Therefore, the Court’s dismissal based upon failure to exhaust was with prejudice as set forth in

the Court’s Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and the Judgment.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 57 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 3
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 06cv852

Accordingly, plaintiff’s Rule 60(a) motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 57 Filed 08/04/08 Page 3 of 3