Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02729/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02729-0/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

BRANDON D. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-2729 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Brandon D. Freeman, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged in his complaint that, since his incarceration, he had

not been receiving any of the medications that he had been taking for several years before his

incarceration. His complaint is now before the court for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Case 3:07-cv-02729-SI Document 8 Filed 09/14/07 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

A prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil rights action. "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). Nonexhaustion

under § 1997e(a) is usually an affirmative defense, but a complaint may be dismissed by the

court for failure to exhaust if a prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no exception to

exhaustion applies." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The complaint plainly shows that Freeman did not exhaust his administrative remedies

before filing this action. Freeman checked the box on the form complaint indicating that he had

not filed an inmate grievance. Complaint, p. 1. In the portion of the form complaint that asks

the plaintiff to explain why he did not present his claim for review through the grievance

procedure, Freeman wrote: "because I had already spoke to a psych regarding my situation – and

I thought it would be taken from there." Complaint, p. 2. Freeman conceded that he had not

started, let alone completed, the inmate appeal process and his explanation for why he had not

done so does not show that he falls within any exception to the exhaustion requirement. 

This action therefore is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new action after

he exhausts his administrative remedies for his claim. The in forma pauperis application is

DENIED. (Docket # 2.) No fee is due. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2007 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02729-SI Document 8 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2