Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03326/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03326-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.08\Pineda326dis-exh 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERARDO V. PINEDA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

G.W. FULLER, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-3326 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate

order. In the complaint, plaintiff indicates that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. 

The court dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative

remedies.

DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that “[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). Exhaustion is mandatory and

no longer left to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382

(2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). 

*E-FILED - 8/12/08*

Case 5:08-cv-03326-RMW Document 6 Filed 08/12/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.08\Pineda326dis-exh 2

Furthermore, the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of available

administrative remedies. Id. at 2387. The plain language of the PLRA requires that prior to

filing suit, all “administrative remedies available [must be] exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

see Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The bottom line is that a

prisoner must pursue the prison administrative process as the first and primary forum for redress

of grievances. He may initiate litigation in federal court only after the administrative process

ends and leaves his grievances unredressed. It would be inconsistent with the objectives of the

statute to let him submit his complaint any earlier than that.”). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted

1997e(a) to mean that 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). 

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 indicates in his complaint that he has been pursuing his administrative

remedies, starting at the informal appeal level. According to attachments to plaintiff’s

complaint, it appears that plaintiff received a partial grant from the first level of appeal on

September 14, 2007, and another partial grant from the second level of appeal on February 27,

2008. It further appears that plaintiff submitted his Director’s level appeal on March 14, 2008,

and he concedes that he has not yet received a response. Accordingly, he has not exhausted his

administrative remedies, and no exception to exhaustion is alleged or apparent in the complaint. 

Section 1997e(a) requires that plaintiff must exhaust all administrative remedies before raising

the claim in a § 1983 complaint in federal court. See McKinney, 31 F.3d at 1199. As it is clear

from the complaint that plaintiff has not completed all levels of administrative review available

to him, and there is no applicable exception to the exhaustion requirement, dismissal without

prejudice is appropriate. 

Case 5:08-cv-03326-RMW Document 6 Filed 08/12/08 Page 2 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.08\Pineda326dis-exh 3

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

8/8/08

Case 5:08-cv-03326-RMW Document 6 Filed 08/12/08 Page 3 of 3