Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01372/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01372-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROCKY OVERTURE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01372-OWW-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

OBJECTIONS DUE MAY 17, 2007

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October 2, 2006.

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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). Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative

process, regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the

process, as long as the administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated.

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement applies

to all prisoner suitsrelating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and exhaustion

must occur prior to filing suit, McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In his complaint, plaintiff acknowledges that there is an inmate appeal process available at

his institution but argues that filing an appeal in his case “would have been futile due to the time

Case 1:06-cv-01372-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

lapse” and a “waste of time.” Plaintiff’s explanation for not pursuing an appeal does not excuse the

requirement. “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing

to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5). “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted

claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007) (citing Porter, 435

U.S. at 524). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense and plaintiff cannot be required to plead or

demonstrate exhaustion in his complaint. Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 921. However, because it is clear from

the face of plaintiff’s complaint that he did not exhaust the available administrative remedies prior

to filing suit, this action must be dismissed. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid grounds for dismissal .

. . .”). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting his claim

prior to filing suit.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On or before May 17,

2007, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned

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

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 19, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01372-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 2