Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00789/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00789-4/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

MICHAEL A. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SULLIVAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 789 OWW SMS P 

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S

MISCELLANEOUS MOTION AS MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT (Doc. 22.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT (Doc. 22.) 

 Michael A. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on May

25, 2005, in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. The case was

transferred and received in this Court on June 16, 2005. On January 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint contending he is being unconstitutionally confined indefinitely in the

Secured Housing Unit. 

On May 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion titled “Motion based on opposition 602 grant .

. .” In this Motion, Plaintiff complains that he is being required to cut off his hair and thus, is

being discriminated against. The Court CONSTRUES this as a Motion to Amend the Complaint

to include this new claim as it is unrelated to the claim raised in the Amended Complaint. 

The Motion to Amend the Complaint, however is DENIED. According to the Inmate

Appeals attached to the Motion, Plaintiff first grieved his hair issue on May 26, 2006, after he

initiated this action on May 25, 2005. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 05/25/06 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

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). 

Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201

(9th Cir.2002) (emphasis added). Thus, a plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is pending.

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

In light of the above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint is DENIED as futile.

Should Plaintiff wish to pursue this claim for relief, he must first exhaust his administrative

remedies and then file a separate civil rights action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00789-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2