Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02319/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02319-2/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

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2319 FCD JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 14, 2006, the court found that plaintiff had stated a

cognizable claim against defendant G. Riddle and directed plaintiff to return the forms necessary

to accomplish service of process. However, on April 21, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint. On May 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 26, 2006,

plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. On August 1, 2006, plaintiff submitted the documents

required by the court’s March 14, 2006 order.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her

pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a). However, an amended or supplemental complaint supersedes the original

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended pleading is

filed, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Id.; see also E.D. Local

Rule 15-220. Although the allegations of this pro se complaint are held to “less stringent

Case 2:05-cv-02319-FCD-JFM Document 22 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 3
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

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)

(per curiam), plaintiff will be required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California.

Because defendants have not yet appeared in this action, plaintiff may amend his

complaint as a matter of right. The court now turns to plaintiff’s third amended complaint. 

Plaintiff has provided exhibits that demonstrate plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies prior to suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Third Amended

Complaint, Ex. F.5.) 

“Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides:

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.

This exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).”

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,

524 (2002). Exhaustion must precede the filing of the complaint and that compliance with the

statute is not achieved by satisfying the exhaustion requirement during the course of an action. 

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199. 

 California’s Department of Corrections provides a four-step

grievance process for prisoners who seek review of an

administrative decision or perceived mistreatment. Within fifteen

working days of “the event or decision being appealed,” the inmate

must ordinarily file an “informal” appeal, through which “the

appellant and staff involved in the action or decision attempt to

resolve the grievance informally.” Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, §§

3084.5(a), 3084.6(c). [Footnote omitted.] If the issue is not resolved

during the informal appeal, the grievant next proceeds to the first

formal appeal level, usually conducted by the prison's Appeals

Coordinator. Id. §§ 3084.5(b), 3084.6(c). Next are the second level,

providing review by the institution's head or a regional parole

administrator, and the third level, in which review is conducted by a

designee of the Director of the Department of Corrections. 

[Footnote omitted.] Id. § 3084.5(e)(1)-(2).

Brown v. Valoff, at 929-30.

Case 2:05-cv-02319-FCD-JFM Document 22 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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 This reversal may also have rendered plaintiff’s claims moot. 1

3

Here, plaintiff’s first level appeal response was dated April 25, 2006, six months

after plaintiff filed his original complaint on November 16, 2005. (Pl.’s Third Amended

Complaint, Ex. F.5.) In addition, plaintiff’s grievance was granted and the deduction of $1,400.00

in restitution and administrative fees was reversed from plaintiff’s trust account. Thus, while

1

plaintiff may have a cognizable claim, he may not file a civil rights action in federal court

concerning that claim until he has exhausted his administrative remedies. If there were residual

fees plaintiff claimed were not reinstated to his account, he was required to pursue an appeal to

the director’s level prior to bringing suit in federal court. The documents appended to plaintiff’s

third amended complaint demonstrate that plaintiff did not do so. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s third amended

complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

These findings and recommendations are 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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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). 

DATED: September 29, 2006.

/001; seel2319.fte

Case 2:05-cv-02319-FCD-JFM Document 22 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3