Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00095/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00095-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND E. HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL

HEALTH SERVICES, et al, 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-0095 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 regarding his medical care with regard to the

administration of his prescription for methadone at the county jail. In the complaint,

Plaintiff states that he did not exhaust his claims to the highest level of appeal through

the inmate grievance procedure. Plaintiff states that he failed to complete the appeals

because it is apparent that the county jail does not dispense methadone and that “all

levels would provide a relative same answer.” Complaint at 1-2.

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

Case 3:10-cv-00095-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 4
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

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.

Compliance with prison grievance procedures is all that is required by the PLRA

to "properly exhaust." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 217-18 (2007). The level of detail

necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system

to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison's requirements, and not the PLRA, that

define the boundaries of proper exhaustion. Id. at 923. 

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 (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

Case 3:10-cv-00095-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 4
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

each level of administrative review at the jail before raising the claim in a § 1983

complaint in federal court. 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). 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 and enter judgment in favor of Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2010

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00095-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 4
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

ROLAND E. HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SF METHADONE CLINIC et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV10-00095 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 22, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Roland E. Howard

#2440023

P.O. Box 67

San Bruno, CA 94066

Dated: January 22, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:10-cv-00095-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/22/10 Page 4 of 4