Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06526/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06526-9/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

PETER BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. VALOFF,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-cv-06526-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST,

WITH PREJUDICE 

(Doc. 57)

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). Now pending before the Court is defendant

Valoff’s second motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies in

compliance with section 1997e(a), filed August 25, 2006. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). (Doc. 57.) Plaintiff

filed an opposition on February 13, 2007, and defendant filed a reply on February 14, 2007. (Docs.

73, 74.) 

Defendant’s first motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust was denied by this Court. On

appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Brown v. Valoff, 422

F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005). In his current motion, defendant contends that “the Ninth Circuit affirmed

in a majority decision, concluding Valoff had failed to carry his burden proof in showing that the

CDCR ‘had any remaining authority to act on the subject of the complaint.’” (Doc. 58, Memo., 2:2-

5, quoting Brown at 937.) This Court views the Brown decision differently. The Ninth Circuit, after

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 75 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 This matter will be set for a trial setting conference once the Court’s administrative reassignment of cases, 1

necessitated by the appointment of the undersigned to the position of United States District Judge, has been

completed. (Doc. 68.)

2

a thorough, detailed discussion of the facts, concluded “that Brown did exhaust such administrative

remedies as are available,” and “[s]ection 1997e(a) therefore creates no barrier to Brown’s pursuit

of monetary relief.” Brown, 422 F.3d at 940. 

The Ninth Circuit gave careful consideration to the facts and found that plaintiff exhausted.

This Court and the parties are bound by that decision. See Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp.

of Am., 902 F.2d 703, 715 (9th Cir.1990). Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust,

filed August 25, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED, WITH PREJUDICE.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 75 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2