Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00842/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00842-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNIE GRAY JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0842 MCE DAD P

vs.

C.A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. 

The district court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking

relief against a governmental entity or against any officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In the present case, plaintiff has sued numerous staff, both medical and

correctional, employed at California Medical Facility, along with the director of the California

Department of Corrections. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Lee, the officer in charge on second

watch, assaulted him sexually with a baton on the night of February 16th of an unspecified year

and caused him to suffer serious physical injuries. Plaintiff further alleges that all the other

defendants practice or permit a pattern of excessive force. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and

Case 2:05-cv-00842-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 06/14/05 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

1

 Any inmate appeal concerning the assault should describe the involvement and actions

of all persons who violated his rights. If plaintiff files a new action after he exhausts available

administrative remedies, he should allege specific facts concerning each defendant’s involvement

in the violation of his federal civil rights. Vague and conclusory allegations will not suffice.

2

an injunction prohibiting the defendants and others from transferring him to another institution

without his consent and from stalking, threatening, punishing, retaliating against, or harassing

him for filing this action. Plaintiff also seeks millions of dollars in damages.

Plaintiff states that a grievance procedure is available at the institution but

indicates that he has not filed a grievance concerning the facts relating to his complaint because

of “Revenge for other 602’s and Plaintiff was denied Relief form [sic], First level through

Director Level of his Administrative Appeal Process.”

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 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). The exhaustion of prison

administrative procedures is mandated “regardless of the relief offered through [such]

procedures.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A remedial scheme is considered

“available” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) where the administrative process has authority

to take some action in response to a prisoner’s grievance, even if the action is not the remedial

action sought by the prisoner. Id. at 736. Courts may not read futility or other exceptions into

statutory exhaustion requirements “where Congress has provided otherwise.” Id. at 741 n.6.

A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal of an

action. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d

1198, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). In the present case, plaintiff’s complaint contains a

concession to nonexhaustion of available administrative remedies based on alleged futility. This

action should be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new civil rights action after

plaintiff has exhausted available administrative remedies.1

Case 2:05-cv-00842-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 06/14/05 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the action.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Any document containing objections should be titled

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the

right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 13, 2005.

DAD:13

gray0842.efr

Case 2:05-cv-00842-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 3