Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01456/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01456-1/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

SAM-BANG CHENG,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MATTINGLY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01456-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Sam-Bang Cheng (“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

18, 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 suits relating 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). 

Plaintiff pursued his inmate appeal through the second level of review but did not thereafter

Case 1:06-cv-01456-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/27/07 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

27

28

 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance system for 1

prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id.

at § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first formal level, second formal

level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted

within fifteen working days of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to

the informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c).

2

file the appeal at the third and final level, known as the Director’s Level. (Comp., pgs. 12-14; 1

Exhibits 1-5.) Plaintiff provides a number of explanations and excuses, none of which are availing.

Plaintiff’s appeal was not fully granted and plaintiff’s argument that it would have been futile to

pursue the appeal further lacks merit. “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). The third level of review was available to

plaintiff and he was required to pursue his appeal to that level in order to satisfy the exhaustion

requirement. Plaintiff’s assertion that the appeal was screened out, rendering the process

unavailable, is belied by his exhibits. Plaintiff had an appeal screened out on November 3, 2005,

on the ground that plaintiff had failed to show he was being adversely effected. (Ex. 2.) Plaintiff’s

inmate appeal of the claims at issue in this action was granted in part and denied in part at the second

level of review March 7, 2006. (Ex. 5.) Thus, the screening decision did not involve the later-issued

second-level decision, and did not preclude plaintiff from proceeding to the third and final level of

review.

“[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 is it 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 . . . .”). 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01456-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/27/07 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

27

28

3

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). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, 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: March 27, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01456-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 3