Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02131/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE LAMAR HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL, et

al., 

Defendants.

________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 06-2131 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

On March 22, 2006, plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail

proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging the absence of a guard at the medical dispensary allowed another inmate to

attack him. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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 Cir.

1988).

Case 3:06-cv-02131-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide

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). The exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and not

merely directory. Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983, 988 (2002). All available remedies

must be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet federal standards, nor must they be

'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation omitted). Even when the prisoner seeks relief

not available in grievance proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a

prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Exhaustion is a

prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such actions involve

general conditions or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some

other wrong. Porter, 122 S. Ct. at 992. 

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.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct 50 (2003). Nevertheless, 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 appeals, stating “no appeals were filed.” See Complaint at 2. 

As explained by plaintiff, “no appeals were necessary” because “injury was already

incurred from this incident.” See id. There is no authority, however, for the proposition

that exhaustion is excused where the plaintiff has incurred an injury. Indeed, as the very

purpose of administrative grievances is to redress injury, the Court will not read such an

exception into the exhaustion requirement. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6 (stating courts

should not read exceptions into § 1997e(a)). Under § 1997e(a), plaintiff was required to

present his claims to each level of administrative review before raising those claims in a

§ 1983 complaint in federal court. Because it is clear from the complaint that plaintiff has

Case 3:06-cv-02131-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

not done so, and there is no applicable exception to the exhaustion requirement, the instant

complaint is subject to dismissal. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to

plaintiff’s refiling his claim after all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. 

 In light of the dismissal, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and no fee is

due. 

This order terminates Docket No. 2. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2006 

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02131-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 3