Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04666/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04666-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN GARCIA OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAKE COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-4666 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

On October 1, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Lake County

Jail and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Upon initial review of the complaint, the Court liberally construed plaintiff’s allegations that

jail officials were denying him new prescription corrective eyeglasses as an attempt to plead

a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The Court, however,

concluded that the complaint was subject to dismissal because plaintiff had failed to provide

sufficient information for the Court to determine whether a cognizable claim for relief was

stated. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (See Order

filed Jan. 27, 2010 at 2:16-3:14.) 

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-04666-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 4
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

1

The district court received the above-referenced amended complaint on February 8,

2010. It was not filed as such, however, because another form complaint had been received

from plaintiff on February 4, 2010, which complaint the Court concluded was the intended

amended complaint in this matter. (Docket No. 8.) Upon closer review, however, it appears

that the complaint received on February 4 was not intended by plaintiff to be filed as the

amended complaint in the instant action. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED (1) to

remove that document from the docket in the instant action and file it, together with the in

forma pauperis application that was filed on February 4 (Docket No. 9), as a new and

separate action, and (2) file and docket the document received on February 8 as the amended

complaint herein. 

2

Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint.1 Having reviewed the allegations therein,

the Court concludes that the instant action must be dismissed, as plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996) (“PLRA”) 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion under § 1997(e)(a) is mandatory and not left

to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). Exhaustion

is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such actions involve

general conditions or particular episodes, whether they allege excessive force or some other

wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in grievance proceedings, such as money

damages. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). An action must be dismissed unless

the prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if he

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) (holding where

administrative remedies are not exhausted before prisoner sends complaint to court,

complaint will be dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by time complaint is actually

filed). 

Because exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a complaint may be

dismissed for failure to exhaust only if failure to exhaust is obvious from the face of the

complaint and/or any attached exhibits. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th

Case 3:09-cv-04666-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Cir. 2003). The court may dismiss a complaint for failure to exhaust where the prisoner has

“conceded nonexhaustion” and “no exception to exhaustion applies.” Id. at 1120. 

The California Code of Regulations provides that each administrator of a local

detention facility shall implement an administrative appeals process for the resolution of

inmate grievances “relating to any conditions of confinement, included [sic] but not limited

to: medical care; classification actions; disciplinary actions; program participation; telephone,

mail, and visiting procedures; and food, clothing, and bedding.” Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15 §

1073(a). The administrative appeals process shall include: a grievance form or instructions

for registering a grievance, resolution of the grievance at the lowest appropriate staff level,

appeal to the next level of review, written reasons for denial of the grievance, provisions for

response to the grievance within a reasonable time limit, and provisions for resolving

questions of jurisdiction within the facility. Id. § 1073(a)(1)-(5). 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff concedes there is a grievance procedure at the

Lake County Jail. He further concedes that: on September 23, 2009, only three days before

he mailed his original complaint to the court for filing, he filed with the Lake County Jail his

first administrative appeal requesting prescription corrective eyeglasses; he thereafter

received non-prescription reading glasses; he did not submit a formal appeal to the next level

of review until November 3, 2009, more than one month after the instant action was opened;

and, as of the date he signed his amended complaint, January 31, 2010, he had not received a

response to that appeal. Thus, it is clear from the face of the amended complaint that plaintiff

had not exhausted his administrative remedies when he filed the instant action. (See

amended form complaint at 2:1-12 & attached pleadings at § II(C).) 

Section 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires a prisoner-plaintiff to present his claims to each

available level of administrative review before raising those claims in a § 1983 complaint in

federal court. Here, it is clear from the face of the amended complaint that plaintiff did not

exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his medical claim before filing the instant

action. Further, there is nothing in the amended complaint that would support a finding that

an exception to the exhaustion requirement applies. Consequently, plaintiff may not proceed

Case 3:09-cv-04666-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

with his claim in the instant action. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to

plaintiff’s refiling his claims in a new action after all available administrative remedies have

been exhausted. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04666-MMC Document 10 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 4