Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03695/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03695-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYMAN L. SIMS, SR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN EDDIE YLST,

DIRECTOR MRS. J. WOODFORD, et

al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3695 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL,

DENYING MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS AND TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE

CLERK

(Docket Nos. 3, 10)

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay

State Prison in Crescent City, California, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 regarding the conditions of his confinement at San Quentin State Prison. On April

9, 2007, this Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, denied leave to proceed

in forma pauperis based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a complete application, and ordered

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and a complete application to proceed in forma

pauperis within thirty days of the date of this order. 

Thereafter, on April 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a “stay of

proceedings pending exhaustion of administrative appeal procedures” (docket no. 10). In

the motion, Plaintiff states that he commenced the process of exhausting his

administrative appeals with regard to the instant complaint by filing an inmate/parolee

appeal form 602 on June 19, 2006, shortly after he filed this case on June 9, 2006. 

Plaintiff further alleges that he has not yet completed the administrative appeals process

with regard to his claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without

prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint after he has completely exhausted the

Case 3:06-cv-03695-TEH Document 11 Filed 05/16/07 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

administrative remedies available to him.

DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[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 available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. 

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,

739 (2001)). "Prisoners must now exhaust all 'available' remedies, not just those that

meet federal standards." Id. Even when the relief sought cannot be granted by the

administrative process, i.e., monetary damages, a prisoner must still exhaust

administrative remedies. Id. at 2382-83 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 734). 

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); see

Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (where administrative

remedies are not exhausted before the prisoner sends his complaint to the court it will be

dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by the time the complaint is actually filed). 

Although exhaustion is an affirmative defense, the Court may dismiss a complaint

sua sponte for failure to exhaust if it is clear from the face of the complaint and attached

exhibits that Plaintiff has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement. Wyatt v. Terhune,

315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-30

(9th Cir. 1984) (although running of statute of limitations is affirmative defense, it may

be grounds for sua sponte dismissal where defense is complete and obvious from face of

the pleadings). 

The State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal

Case 3:06-cv-03695-TEH Document 11 Filed 05/16/07 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

administratively "any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by

those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §

3084.1(a). It also provides its inmates the right to file administrative appeals alleging

misconduct by correctional officers. See id. § 3084.1(e). In order to exhaust available

administrative remedies within this 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. Id. § 3084.5;

Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). This satisfies the

administrative remedies exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. 

Here, Plaintiff alleges in the motion that he did not exhaust his claims through all

levels of the state prison administrative grievance system before filing suit and requests a

stay of the proceedings to do so. See Motion at 2 (docket no. 10). Because exhausting

the claims now would not cure the failure to do so before filing suit, the motion is

DENIED (docket no. 10). See McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199. Therefore, the complaint is

DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a new complaint, alleging the same

subject matter of the substantive complaint, if and when he exhausts the administrative

remedies available to him. Based upon this dismissal, Plaintiff’s previously filed motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 3) is DENIED as moot and no fee is

due. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in accordance with this order.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 05/14/07 

 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03695-TEH Document 11 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 3