Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03314/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03314-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

DONALD DOUGLAS BONE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 07-3314 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The above-titled action was opened on June 25, 2007, when plaintiff, a California

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a letter complaining that he was being denied emergency

dental care at the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) at Soledad. In the letter, plaintiff

stated that on June 7, 2007 he had filed a first-level emergency medical appeal requesting

dental care, and that the appeal had been forwarded to the second level of review, where it

was still pending. On the same date plaintiff’s letter was filed, the Court notified plaintiff in

writing that the action was deficient due to plaintiff’s failure to submit either a complaint or

petition. In said notice, plaintiff was advised that his failure to submit a complaint or petition

within thirty days would result in dismissal of the action. 

On July 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in

which he alleges that he is still awaiting adequate dental care, and that his medical appeal is

still in progress. Specifically, plaintiff complains that prison officials at CTF have told him

that no option is available to him other than the one of having his painfully abscessed tooth

Case 3:07-cv-03314-MMC Document 7 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 3
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

pulled, and they are refusing to provide him with access to a dentist outside of the prison who

can perform a root canal. Plaintiff states that his appeal seeking access to a dentist outside

the prison to perform a root canal is still pending at the second level of review. He asks the

Court to an issue an order requiring prison officials to provide him with a root canal.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 that 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, however, must be liberally construed. See Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

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 is mandatory and not left to the discretion of

the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (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). The exhaustion requirement requires

“proper exhaustion” of all available administrative remedies. Woodford, 126 S. Ct. at 2387.

 The State of California provides its prisoners and parolees the right to appeal

administratively “any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those

individuals as adversely affecting their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). In

order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must

proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal review, (2) first formal written appeal

on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second formal level appeal to the institution head or

Case 3:07-cv-03314-MMC Document 7 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 3
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

By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. 

3

designee, and (4) third formal level appeal to the Director of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation. See Barry v Ratelle, 985 F. Supp 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal.

1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision from the Director’s level of

review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38. 

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

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

“conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no exception to exhaustion applies.” Id. at 1120. Here,

plaintiff concedes in his complaint that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, see

Complaint at 2, and no exception to exhaustion is alleged or apparent in the complaint. 

Section 1997e(a) requires that plaintiff present his claim to each level of administrative

review set forth above, including the Director’s level of review, before raising the claim in a

§ 1983 complaint in federal court. As it is clear from the complaint that plaintiff has not

pursued all levels of administrative review available to him, and there is no applicable

exception to the exhaustion requirement, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 

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

plaintiff’s refiling his claim after all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. 

The Clerk shall close the file.1

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 2, 2008

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03314-MMC Document 7 Filed 01/02/08 Page 3 of 3