Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01245/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01245-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE EARL STEPHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALVAREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01245-SI 

ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT 

MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 76, 77

In this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action, plaintiff sued several prison officials for 

deliberate indifference to his medical needs. On June 7, 2016, the court granted defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment based on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and entered 

judgment against plaintiff. 

Plaintiff has filed a “‘motion to re-open’ from 6-7-16 ‘dismissal without prejudice,’” in 

which he appears to contend that he has exhausted administrative remedies. Attached to his 

motion is a third level administrative appeal decision dated September 1, 2016 referring to another 

cancelled appeal. See Docket No. 76 at 3. The motion to re-open is DENIED. Docket No. 76. 

Administrative remedies must be exhausted before an action is filed; a post-judgment exhaustion 

of administrative remedies would not satisfy the exhaustion requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

The September 1, 2016 third level decision did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement for this 

action filed in 2014. The court dismissed this action without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new 

action (rather than without prejudice to him moving to reopen this action) if he ever complies with 

the exhaustion requirement. 

Case 3:14-cv-01245-SI Document 78 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff’s “request by ‘order’ FRCP Rule # 26, 34 ‘production’ . . forthwith” seeks 

discovery about an unserved defendant who was dismissed on October 20, 2015. Docket No. 77. 

The request is DENIED for the reasons stated at page 12 of the order granting summary judgment 

for defendants. See Docket No. 74 at 12. The request is denied for the additional reason that it is 

untimely. This action is closed, and it is too late to conduct discovery in it. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01245-SI Document 78 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 2