Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS LEE MESTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. M. KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-6580 REC SMS P

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

RETURN LODGED PROPOSED AMENDED

COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF

(Doc. 35)

Plaintiff Morris Lee Mester (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against

defendants Kim, Sacks, Neubarth, Nicholes, Robinson, Plaza, and Malfi under the Eighth

Amendment. On June 10, 2005, the court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to

initiate service of plaintiff’s complaint. On June 21, 2005, plaintiff submitted a proposed amended

complaint. 

There are several problems with plaintiff’s attempt to amend. First, an amended pleading

supercedes all prior pleadings. Thus, if plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint were to be accepted

for filing, the original complaint would no longer serve any purpose in this action. Because plaintiff

omitted any mention in his amended complaint of the claims that this action is currently proceeding

on, plaintiff’s current claims would effectively be dismissed from the action if the amended

complaint were to be accepted. 

Second, the claims set forth in plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint occurred in 2005.

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 37 Filed 06/24/05 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

1

 Plaintiff concedes in the proposed amended complaint that the claims have not been fully exhausted.

2

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 must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey,

311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement applies

to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and “[a]ll

‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal standards, nor

must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing toBooth v. Churner, 532

U.S. 731, 739 n.5 (2001)). Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless

of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth, 532 U.S. at

741.

In light of section 1997e(a), plaintiff may not add new claims that arose after this suit was

filed. In a “conflict between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the PLRA, the rule would have

to yield to the later-enacted statute to the extent of the conflict.” Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 982

(11th Cir. 2000). Rule 15 “does not and cannot overrule a substantive requirement or restriction

contained in a statute (especially a subsequently enacted one).” Id. at 983. Allowing plaintiff to

pursue the claims set forth in the amended complaint would allow plaintiff to thwart the mandate

of section 1997e(a), which requires that claim exhaustion occur prior to filing suit and not during

the pendency of the suit. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. Even if the 2005 claims set forth in

the amended complaint had been fully exhausted, plaintiff may not do an end run around the

exhaustion requirement by pursuing the claims in this action.1

Because plaintiff may not pursue his new claims in this action, the Clerk’s Office is directed

to return the proposed amended complaint to plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 37 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2