Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079-9/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

HUNG DUONG NGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CLARK, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5079 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

ADDITION OF PARTIES (Doc. 37.) 

 Hung Duong Nguon (“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. Plaintiff filed a Motion

Requesting the addition of parties on November 17, 2005. In this Motion, Plaintiff alleges that

an Officer Hernandez violated his constitutional rights on November 8, 2005. Plaintiff also

alleges that another Correctional Officer M. Hill placed Plaintiff in administrative segregation

based on a false allegation. Plaintiff alleges the deprivations were in retaliation for his filing a

civil lawsuit. Thus, Plaintiff seeks to include these individuals as Defendants in the instant

action. 

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). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). The Section 1997e(a)

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 11/23/05 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

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

U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and “[a]ll ‘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 Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 n.5 (2001)). 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, 532 U.S. at 741.

In light of section 1997e(a), Plaintiff may not add new claims that arose after this suit was

filed. In a “conflict between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the PLRA, the rule would

have to yield to the later-enacted statute to the extent of the conflict.” Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d

970, 982 (11th Cir. 2000). Rule 15 “does not and cannot overrule a substantive requirement or

restriction contained in a statute (especially a subsequently enacted one).” Id. at 983. Allowing

Plaintiff to pursue the claims he added in his amended complaint would allow plaintiff to thwart

the mandate of section 1997e(a), which requires that claim exhaustion occur prior to filing suit

and not during the pendency of the suit. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

All claims at issue in this action must have been exhausted prior to December 17, 2003,

when Plaintiff filed this action. Thus, Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to add new

claims and parties that arose after December 17, 2003, must be DENIED. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint to add new parties is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2