Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02363/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02363-1/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

ANTHONY NATIVIDAD, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOE McGRATH; et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-2363 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

On April 27, 2006, this Court reopened Plaintiff’s case on his own motion, and

provided Plaintiff with thirty days in which to file an amended complaint in this civil

rights action. Since that time, Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor

contacted the Court to request an extension of time to do so. 

As of April 27, 2006, Plaintiff’s case had been administratively stayed in this

Court pending resolution of Defendants’ appeal, after this Court’s earlier denial of

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,

where Plaintiff’s inmate administrative appeal was denied as untimely at the highest level

of administrative review. On July 18, 2005, the Ninth Circuit upheld this Court’s denial

of the motion to dismiss based on recent Ninth Circuit precedent in the case of Ngo v.

Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 631 (9th Cir. 2005). However, since that time, the United

States Supreme Court has reversed the holding of the Ninth Circuit in Ngo and decided

that the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (“PLRA”) exhaustion requirement cannot be

satisfied "by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative

grievance or appeal." Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006). In Woodford, the

Supreme Court held that the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion”. 

Case 3:03-cv-02363-TEH Document 51 Filed 08/08/07 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

Id. at 2387. “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and

other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively

without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Id. at 2386.

(footnote omitted). In this case, Plaintiff had only attempted to administratively exhaust

his claims after this Court dismissed an earlier-filed complaint in Case No. C 02-4634

TEH (PR), in which Plaintiff conceded that he had not exhausted his claims through the

administrative appeals process. In the instant case, Plaintiff conceded in his complaint

and in opposition to the motion to dismiss that his administrative appeal to the highest

level of review had been denied as untimely. See, Complaint at 9; Opposition to Motion

to Dismiss at 3-4; Exhibit A in Support of Opposition. 

Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodford, this Court’s earlier

determination to deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be reversed. As such, the

motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s case dismissed for failure to properly

exhaust his prison administrative remedies before filing suit. The Clerk shall close the

file and enter judgment in this matter.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02363-TEH Document 51 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2