Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05429-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH ALLEN LEWIS, SR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-5429 CRB (PR)

ORDER 

(Doc # 48)

On October 7, 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and

dismissed plaintiff’s prisoner action without prejudice to refiling after exhausting

California’s prison administrative process. A careful review of the record made

clear that plaintiff had not exhausted his retaliation claim before he filed suit.

On October 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to alter/amend and stay

judgment, arguing, among other things, that he had recently filed an inmate appeal. 

On October 25, 2005, the court denied the motion, noting that a “prisoner must

exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit.” Oct. 25, 2005 Order

at 1 (citing McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-01 (9th Cir. 2002))

(emphasis in original).

On November 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and renewed his

motion to alter/amend and stay judgment, adding that prison officials had “screened

out” his inmate appeal. Plaintiff’s motion (doc # 48) is DENIED. Plaintiff may
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

well have exhausted all available administrative remedies if his appeal has been

screened out, see, e.g., Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005)

(holding that a prisoner has exhausted all available administrative remedies when

his first formal appeal was screened out as untimely and he was informed that the

decision could not be appealed except if he alleged that it was in fact timely), but

this simply means that he may now be free to file a new action, not that judgment

should be altered/amended and this action reinstated, cf. McKinney, 311 F.3d at

1199-01 (action must be dismissed without prejudice unless prisoner exhausted

available administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if prisoner exhausts

while the suit is pending). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge