Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01331/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01331-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN RAMON TUGGLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAYLOR, psych. tech., etc., 

Defendant. /

No. C 07-1331 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Steven Ramon Tuggle, formerly incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and

currently incarcerated at California State Prison - Corcoran, filed this pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Tuggle alleged that a psychiatric technician

ignored his complaint that he was feeling suicidal one night and continued on his rounds

passing out medications to other inmates after Tuggle refused to take his medication. Tuggle

alleges that he cut his finger that night, and complained during the next day's morning and

evening medication rounds that he was suicidal but was not evaluated until the day after that. 

His complaint is now before the court for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2).

Case 3:07-cv-01331-MHP Document 6 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

There is an exhaustion problem in this action. "No 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). The State of California provides its

inmates and parolees the right to appeal administratively "any departmental decision, action,

condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." See

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies

within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal

resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level

appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third level appeal to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See id. § 3084.5; Ngo v.

Woodford, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2383 (2006); Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D.

Cal. 1997). Nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is usually an affirmative defense, but a

complaint may be dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust if a prisoner “conce[des] to

nonexhaustion” and “no exception to exhaustion applies." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

The materials submitted by Tuggle plainly show he did not satisfy the requirement

that he exhaust administrative remedies. On the form complaint, Tuggle checked the box

indicating that he had exhausted at the highest level and directed the reader to "please see

exhibit 'B'" regarding his exhaustion at the third formal level. Exhibit "B" is a December 18,

2006 letter from the inmate appeals branch of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation returning Tuggle's inmate appeal because the appeal had not complied with

the requirement that the inmate had to submit the appeal within 15 working days of the event

or decision being appealed or receiving a lower level decision. See Complaint, Exh. B. In

short, the director's level decision was to reject the appeal as untimely and did not reach the

merits of the appeal.

A prisoner cannot satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement "by filing of an untimely

or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal." Ngo, 126 S. Ct. at

Case 3:07-cv-01331-MHP Document 6 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2382. The PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion. Id. at 2382, 2387. A

prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable

procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court. See

id. at 2384. Plaintiff did not. His untimely appeal did not satisfy the requirement that he

exhaust administrative remedies before filing his action in federal court. For the foregoing

reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01331-MHP Document 6 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 3