Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05425/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05425-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK P. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-5425 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate of San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiff filed

a timely amended complaint.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s claim is that due to unsafe conditions in the prison yard, he fell and hit his

head and needed stitches. He states that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies on this

claim because “this was not a grievable matter after injury” (Amend. Compl. 2). 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 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

Case 3:07-cv-05425-WHA Document 11 Filed 03/29/10 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

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Compliance with the exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524

(2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739-40 & n.5 (2001). The administrative remedies

need not meet federal standards, nor need they be “plain, speedy and effective.” Porter, 534

U.S. at 524. 

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." 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 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. Id. § 3084.5; Barry v.

Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). This satisfies the administrative remedies

exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. 

Although nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a prisoner’s

concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, a claim may be dismissed without prejudice if it is clear

from the record that the prisoner concedes that he did not exhaust administrative remedies. Id.

Plaintiff states in his amended complaint that he did not exhaust his claims (Amend. Compl. 2). 

His allegation that the claims are not “grievable” are incorrect, as he may file administrative

grievances concerning “any” prison “condition.” 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 308.41(a). The fact that

plaintiff seeks money damages, which are not available via the prison administrative grievance

procedure does not excuse his obligation to exhaust his claims. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.

81, 85-86 (2006) (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 734) (holding that even when the relief sought

cannot be granted by the administrative process, i.e., monetary damages, prisoner must still

exhaust administrative remedies). Because it is clear from the amended complaint that plaintiff

has conceded to not exhausting his claims, the claims must be dismissed. 

Case 3:07-cv-05425-WHA Document 11 Filed 03/29/10 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

CONCLUSION

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new case after exhausting. The

clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\SMITH5425.DSM-EXH.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-05425-WHA Document 11 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 3