Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01387/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01387-1/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

TONY BLACKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUMAN,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1387 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RETURN LODGED PROPOSED SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF 

 Tony Blackman (“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 the instant action on November 2, 2005, naming J.W. Luman as the sole

Defendant and contending that on August 22, 2005, Defendant Luman denied Plaintiff the right

to request an inmate appeal complaint be processed. 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 2, 2005. In the Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff adds Captains M.P. Moore and G. Ponder and Warden Evans as co-defendants. The

Amended Complaint, however, now complaints of events that took place on November 20, 2005,

involving the two newly named Defendants. 

On December 13, 2005, Plaintiff submitted yet another Complaint which the Court has

referred to as the Proposed Second Amended Complaint. This Complaint names four new

Defendants and entirely omits all previously named Defendants from the caption. In addition,

the proposed Second Amended Complaint now complains of events that took place as late as

Case 1:05-cv-01387-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 01/20/06 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

27

28

2

December 1, 2005 involving the newly named Defendants. 

Generally, a plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without

leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is

required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely give leave

to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be

futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th

Cir. 1991).

In this case, Plaintiff exercised his right to file a First Amended Complaint on December

2, 2005. As noted above, Plaintiff did not include all previously named Defendants in the

Caption and now complaints of issues that arose after the initiation of this action on November 2,

2005. Further, Plaintiff did not seek permission to file a Second Amended Complaint as is

required by the rules. 

Following a review of all of the Complaints the Court will not file the proposed Second

Amended Complaint currently lodged with the Court. As in the previously filed First Amended

Complaint, the claims raised surround issues that occurred after Plaintiff initiated this action on

November 2, 2005. As a result, the claims are necessarily unexhausted and would be subject to

dismissal were the Court to file the Second Amended Complaint. 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 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). The Section 1997e(a)

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435

U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 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). "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

Case 1:05-cv-01387-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 01/20/06 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

27

28

1The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee under the department’s jurisdiction may appeal any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse

effect upon their welfare.” Id. at 3084.1(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.” Cal. Code Regs. tit

15, § 3084.5 (2004). 

Section 1997e(a) does not impose a pleading requirement, but rather, is an affirmative defense under which

defendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In order to meet this burden, Defendants must show that further administrative remedies are

available to Plaintiff. Brown v. Valoff, -- F.3d--, 422 F.3d 926, 2005 WL 2129069, *7 (9th Cir.2005). The Ninth

Circuit has also found exhaustion when a prisoner has demonstrated that his grievance has been rejected as untimely

and he could "go no further in the prison's administrative system; no remedies remained available to him." Ngo v.

Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2005). 

3

524 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n. 5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is

pending.1 McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. As the claims raised in the proposed Second

Amended Complaint arose after this suit was initiated they are necessarily unexhausted. 

Accordingly, the Court will DIRECT the Clerk of Court to return the lodged proposed Second

Amended Complaint to Plaintiff. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return the lodged Proposed Second

Amended Complaint to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01387-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 3