Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01342/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01342-3/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

MARIO HATRI WOOTEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01342-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE

AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Mario Hatri Wooten (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October

11, 2005.

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at California State PrisonCorcoran, where plaintiff is presently incarcerated. Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, and

alleges that defendants Scribner, Beer, Cano,Junger, Mahoney, Valasquez, Busche, and Yarborough

interfered with his right to practice his religion, in violation of the First Amendment.

The eventsatissue in this action allegedly occurred between August 24, 2005, and September

30, 2005, and plaintiff signed his complaint and dated it October 5, 2005. (Comp., § IV, V.)

Plaintiff alleges that he did not file a grievance and that there is not a grievance procedure available

at his institution. (Id., § II.) 

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

Case 1:05-cv-01342-OWW-LJO Document 17 Filed 05/19/06 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

2

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought by the

prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative process can

provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards,

nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth, 532 U.S.

at 739 n.5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff’s allegation that there is not a grievance procedure available at his institution is

without merit. The California Department of Corrections provides an administrative grievance

system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084, et seq. “Any inmate or parolee

under the department’s jurisdiction may appeal any departmental decision, action, condition, or

policy which they can reasonably demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” Id.

at 3084.1(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first formal level,

second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Cal. Code Regs.

tit 15, § 3084.5 (2006).

“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid grounds for dismissal . . . .” Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003). In this instance, plaintiff did not exhaust his claim

and his attempt to excuse his failure to do so by claiming that there is no grievance procedure is

unavailing. The fact that plaintiff drafted his complaint less than a week after the events at issue

further supports a finding that plaintiff not only failed to exhaust but could not have made even a

good faith attempt to exhaust prior to filing suit. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.6 (appeals must be

submitted within fifteen working days, informal level responses shall be completed within ten

working days, and first level responses shall be completed within thirty working days). 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01342-OWW-LJO Document 17 Filed 05/19/06 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

3

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01342-OWW-LJO Document 17 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 3