Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05418/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05418-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WILSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Warden CURRY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5418 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case was opened when plaintiff sent the court a document headed “Motion to

Reinstate TRO/Preliminary Inunction.” Although he says “reinstate,” there is no reference

in the document to a previous injunction, and no indication what he may have meant by

that, so the clerk’s treating it as an attempt to file a new case was correct.

On the day the case was opened, the court notified plaintiff he had neither paid the

filing fee nor submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A copy of the

court's form for applications to proceed in forma pauperis was provided with the notice,

along with a return envelope. Plaintiff was informed that if he did not either pay the fee or

file the application within thirty days the case would be dismissed. Plaintiff did not file an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, nor did he pay the fee, but he did file a “Motion for

Extension of Time.” 

In the motion he does not say what deadline he wants extended, but he does explain

that much legal mail into and out the institution is tampered with, and that he sent an

inmate appeal (grievance) to the final director’s level in Sacramento but has not gotten any

response. He says that he wants the extension “for the sole purpose of Sacramento doing

an investigation on why is my legal mail being tampered with and find the whereabouts of

Case 4:07-cv-05418-PJH Document 6 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

[his inmate grievance,] then I won’t waste any court time or money until everything is

exhausted, please consider.” Because the deadline to pay the filing fee or apply for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis is the only pending deadline in the case, presumably that is

what he wants extended.

Plaintiff is wrong that he can administratively exhaust his claim after filing suit. An

action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted his available administrative

remedies before he or she filed suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is

pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see Vaden v.

Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (where administrative remedies are not

exhausted before the prisoner sends his complaint to the court it will be dismissed even if

exhaustion is completed by the time the complaint is actually filed). The court can certainly

understand his wish not to incur costs until everything is exhausted, but because his case

would be subject to dismissal whether or not he exhausts now, granting an extension would

serve no purpose. The motion for an extension (document number 4 on the docket) is

DENIED,

Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. This case is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close this

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\WILSON5418.DSIFP.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-05418-PJH Document 6 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 2