Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04934/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04934-0/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 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Pierce934miscmotn 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON JAMES PIERCE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, Jr., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-4934 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR COURT ORDER 

(Docket No. 75)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court initially

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff has also filed numerous notices and documents with the Court concerning his

claims. As stated in the Court’s previous order, any documentation that Plaintiff wishes

the Court to consider regarding his claims must be filed in Plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

On August 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to order the Warden at

the California Institution for Men (“CIM”) to return his personal property, including legal

materials and documents. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint concerning the

return of his property is not before the Court in the amended complaint. 

**E-filed 3/25/08**

Case 5:03-cv-04934-JF Document 95 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 2
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 Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Pierce934miscmotn 2

This Court has no jurisdiction to order the Warden to comply with the Court’s orders

because this individual is not a party in the present action, nor does the Court’s

jurisdiction, within the Northern District of California, extend to the location of the

California Institution for Men in Chino, California. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint regarding his personal property must be

addressed through the administrative process available to Plaintiff. See Booth v. Churner,

121 S. Ct. 1819, 1825 (2001); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In order to exhaust available

administrative remedies within the state prison system, a prisoner must proceed through

several levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602

inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4)

third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. 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). Id. at 1237-38. Courts do not have discretion under §

1997e(a) to excuse exhaustion. Id. at 1825 n.5. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a

Court order (docket no. 75) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will review the

amended complaint in a separate written order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

 United States District Judge

3/25/08

Case 5:03-cv-04934-JF Document 95 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 2