Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00038/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00038-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. BOARDMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00038-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Lonnie Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 7, 2010. In his complaint, Plaintiff 1,2

alleges that he mailed grievances by certified mail approximately five times, but they were

Plaintiff lists himself and inmate Kenneth Gordon as plaintiffs, although only Plaintiff Williams signed the

1

complaint. Plaintiff is not an attorney and is proceeding without counsel. A non-attorney proceeding pro se may

bring his own claims to court, but may not represent others. Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 213 F.3d

1320, 1321 (2000); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v.

United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro se litigant simply cannot “fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Fymbo, 213 F.3d at 1321. Therefore, this action is treated as an

individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil

2

action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury.” In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on December 25, 2009, Defendant

Boardman asserted that Plaintiff and inmate Gordon had sex, and he moved Gordon as a result. Thereafter,

Defendant Boardman allegedly endangered Plaintiff’s safety by inciting members of the Northern Riders gang to

attack Plaintiff. Based on this allegation, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the

imminent danger exception.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00038-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 01/27/10 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

confiscated and destroyed, thereby resulting in exhaustion of the available administrative remedy

process. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 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.” Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies

prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating

to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002). 

TheCaliforniaDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance

system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1 (West 2009). The process is

initiated by submitting a CDCR Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved,

including the informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also

known as the “Director’s Level.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working

days of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the

informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c). 

Satisfaction of the exhaustion requirement requires that prisoners complywith the applicable

procedural rules governing the appeals process. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218; Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d

1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). Circumstances that prevent an inmate from completing the appeals

process may result in a finding that the failure to exhaust is excused. Nunez v. Duncan, No. 04-

36146, 2010 WL 60089, at *7 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010). Here, however, gang members were

allegedly incited to attack Plaintiff on or after December 25, 2009, and Plaintiff mailed his complaint

to the court for filing on January 2, 2010. Given this time frame, it was factually impossible for

Plaintiff to have properly complied with the applicable rules of the appeals process and concluded

that his failure to exhaust was excused because his attempt to utilize the process was thwarted.

///

2

Case 1:10-cv-00038-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 01/27/10 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

It is unclear whether Plaintiff submitted his appeal by mail to the informal level of review,

the first formal level of review, or as an emergency appeal. Tit. 15 §§ 3084.6(b), 3084.7(a). 

Regardless, Plaintiff filed this suit before waiting for the expiration of the time period within which

prison officials may respond to an appeal. Id. Absent the expiration of the applicable time period 3

without a response, Plaintiff has no factual basis to conclude that his appeals received no response

because of wrongdoing on the part of prison officials. Because it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s

complaint that he filed suit prior to exhausting, this action must be dismissed. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion

is a valid grounds for dismissal . . . .”). 

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting his claim prior to filing suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Prison officials have ten working days to respond to informal level appeals, thirty working days to respond

3

to first formal level appeals, and five working days to respond to emergency appeals once accepted by the appeals

coordinator as emergency appeals. Tit. 15 §§ 3084.6(b), 3084.7(a)(2). The deadline to respond commences upon

receipt of the appeal by appeals coordinator, and exceptions to the response deadline are permitted. Tit. 15 §

3084.6. Weekends and holidays are not working days, and the first day is excluded. Tit. 15 § 4003(j).

3

Case 1:10-cv-00038-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 01/27/10 Page 3 of 3