Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02183/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02183-0/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

DAVID W. WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2183 WBS DAD P

vs.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary

injunction.

The defendants are employees of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff is informed that the district court is required to screen every

complaint brought by a prisoner seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or

employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court must dismiss a complaint

if the prisoner has raised claims that are frivolous or 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. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (requiring the district court to dismiss a

Case 2:06-cv-02183-WBS-DAD Document 8 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

case in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such

relief).

The plaintiff in this case is confined in California Medical Facility (CMF). The

defendants are employed at CMF or in Sacramento at the headquarters of the CDCR. Plaintiff

alleges that he suffers from “psychosis with DEMONS” and has been assigned to a single cell for

many years because of his mental problems. Although the remainder of plaintiff’s allegations are

confusing, his exhibits reveal that he filed multiple appeals seeking permanent single-cell status,

psychotherapy that meets his demands, or a transfer to Atascadero. The appeals were denied, but

plaintiff continued to be housed in a single cell. Plaintiff recently decided that he wants “to

attempt living with another Inmate.” When he asked to be double-celled with a specific inmate,

the request was denied. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief is as follows:

Order Warden VEAL to not double cell Plaintiff Wilson unless

Plaintiff & other Inmate sign cell compatibility Form, and same to

apply to all mental patients, and Inmate’s Primary Clinician

approves double cell living, or incidents exonerated. Plaintiff

Wilson Ordered sent to Atascadero Hospital & allowed to keep

Typewriter & Legal Books/Materail [sic], with 1 battery operated

AM/FM C/D Cassette Radio, & 1 battery operated 9 inch TV, in

cell & access to Typewriter 6 hours a day. Order Plaintiff or any

Mental Patient injured due to forced double cell living with out

signed compatibility Form to receive damages for physical pain,

Emotional Stress, Mental Anguish, Future Detriment, & Punitive

damages against defendant’s TILTON, VEAL, SILBAUGH.

(Compl. at 3.)

Plaintiff alleges that there is a grievance procedure, that he filed a grievance

concerning the facts relating to his complaint, and that the grievance process was completed. 

Plaintiff’s factual allegations and exhibits contradict the allegation of exhaustion. Plaintiff

alleges as follows: he and the inmate of his choice signed a cell compatibility form for

assignment to the same cell; plaintiff showed the form to an officer on September 18, 2006, and

was told he had to go to the psychiatric treatment team; on September 19, 2006, plaintiff showed

Case 2:06-cv-02183-WBS-DAD Document 8 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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

the form to defendant Breda and requested a cell move; defendant Breda talked to psychiatric

staff and correctional staff; plaintiff was told that correctional staff would decide which inmates

were housed together; on September 24, 2006, plaintiff wrote to the warden concerning the

refusal of his request to be double-celled with the inmate he has chosen. Plaintiff’s complaint is

dated September 26, 2006, and was received for filing on October 3, 2006. Plaintiff has not filed

a grievance concerning (1) his current desire to be double celled, (2) the double celling of

inmates who have not signed cell compatibility forms, (3) plaintiff’s current desire for a transfer

to Atascadero State Hospital, or (4) the property issues alleged in this case. 

By the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), Congress amended 42

U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions

under section 1983 of this title, 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 requirement “applies to all inmate suits about

prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they

allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

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 remedy

is available for purposes of § 1997e(a) as long as the administrative process has authority to take

some action in response to the prisoner’s grievance, even if the action that might be taken is not

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

exceptions into the statutory exhaustion requirement of the PLRA. 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). If the court concludes that the prisoner has not

exhausted administrative remedies, “the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without

prejudice.” 315 F.3d at 1120.

Case 2:06-cv-02183-WBS-DAD Document 8 Filed 12/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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

 A new action brought after exhaustion is complete should not bear the case number

1

assigned to this action.

4

Here, plaintiff’s conclusory allegation of exhaustion is contradicted by his factual

allegations and his exhibits. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis should be

denied, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied, and this case should be

dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new civil rights action after plaintiff has exhausted

available administrative remedies. See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1200-01 (holding that it would 1

undermine attainment of congressional objectives to permit a prisoner to exhaust administrative

remedies while proceeding with a federal suit).

In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 3, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied;

2. Plaintiff’s December 20, 2006 motion for injunctive relief be denied; and

3. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available

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. A 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: December 27, 2006.

DAD:13

wils2183.efr

Case 2:06-cv-02183-WBS-DAD Document 8 Filed 12/28/06 Page 4 of 4