Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-02292/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-02292-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

CARLOS GILBERT LAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOYKIN, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-2292-NJV (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Dkt. Nos. 6, 9, 14

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by a correctional officer and denied medical care on March 

3, 2016, at San Quentin State Prison. Plaintiff submitted this action on March 28, 2016. Plaintiff 

was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his claims 

before filing this action. (Doc. 11.) He has filed a response. (Doc. 15.)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) 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 such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. 

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). “Prisoners must 

now exhaust all ‘available’ remedies, not just those that meet federal standards.” Id. at 85. Even 

when the relief sought cannot be granted by the administrative process, i.e., monetary damages, a 

prisoner must still exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 85-86 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 734). 

Case 1:16-cv-02292-NJV Document 18 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) provides that 

inmates and parolees “may appeal any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the 

department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse 

effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). “Three 

levels of formal review are provided, and a prisoner exhausts the grievance process when he 

completes the third level.” Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The court previously noted that it appeared unlikely that plaintiff could have fully 

exhausted his claims in the three and a half weeks between the incident and the filing of this 

action. Plaintiff was also advised that he could not proceed with this case if he exhausted his 

claim after the filing of this action. A prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies for 

constitutional claims prior to asserting them in a civil rights complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). If a prisoner exhausts a claim after 

bringing it before the court, his subsequent exhaustion cannot excuse his earlier failure to exhaust. 

Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A prisoner] may initiate litigation in 

federal court only after the administrative process ends and leaves his grievances unredressed. It 

would be inconsistent with the objectives of the statute to let him submit his complaint any earlier 

than that.”) When the district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted administrative 

remedies on a claim, “the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.” Wyatt v. 

Terhune, 315 F.3d, 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) overruled on other grounds.

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to demonstrate that he has exhausted his claims 

rather than this case proceed and plaintiff perhaps miss his opportunity to properly exhaust and 

pursue this action. Plaintiff received a second level response on April 26, 2016. (Doc. 13.) His 

appeal was partially granted in that an inquiry would be conducted into plaintiff’s allegations. Id. 

The second level response advised that only a third level appeal decision would lead to complete

exhaustion. Id. Plaintiff’s complaint was dated as being prepared on March 28, 2016, and was 

postmarked on April 25, 2016. (Docs. 1, 5.) Plaintiff argues that he was completely satisfied with 

the second level response. (Doc 15 at 1-3.) He contends that because he was satisfied he did not 

have to fully exhaust his claim to the third level. Id.

Case 1:16-cv-02292-NJV Document 18 Filed 07/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

While there are certain circumstances when an inmate need not fully exhaust a claim, see 

Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681 (9th Circ. 2010),1 this case does not fall into that exception. 

Plaintiff initiated this case before he received his second level response. While the second level 

response was partially granted, plaintiff seeks money damages in this case and injunctive relief. 

The injunctive relief has already been granted in that an investigation was initiated and plaintiff 

states he is satisfied. Regardless, the underlying incident occurred at San Quentin State Prison and 

all the defendants are employed there. Plaintiff has since been transferred to California Health 

Care Facility, so his claims for injunctive relief are moot. While plaintiff may still seek money 

damages, he failed to fully exhaust that aspect of his claim. The Supreme Court was clear that 

even when the relief sought cannot be granted by the administrative process, i.e., monetary 

damages, a prisoner must still exhaust administrative remedies. Woodford, at 85-86 (citing Booth, 

at 734). This action is dismissed without prejudice but plaintiff may re-file if he fully exhausts the 

claim. Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction is denied because he is no longer being held at San 

Quentin State Prison where the defendants are located and there are no named defendants who 

could provide injunctive relief at plaintiff’s current institution.

CONCLUSION

1. This action is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED. No fee is due.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction (Docket Nos. 9, 14) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2016

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

 1 In Harvey, the Ninth Circuit explained that an “inmate has no obligation to appeal from a grant 

of relief, or a partial grant that satisfies him, in order to exhaust his administrative remedies.” Id. at 685. However, the instant case is distinguishable from Harvey, which turned on the fact that the 

prisoner was induced into abandoning his appeal by the unfulfilled promise of relief. See Benitez 

v. County of Maricopa, No. 13-16926, slip op. at 3 (9th Cir. June 21, 2016). There are no 

allegations that the partial granting of the appeal was rescinded or unfulfilled.

Case 1:16-cv-02292-NJV Document 18 Filed 07/12/16 Page 3 of 3