Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01629/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01629-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN GODINEZ MALDONADO,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

Deputy JENNIFER CLAMON, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-1629 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a prisoner at the San Mateo County Jail. He

contends that he was the victim of excessive force and that defendants failed to provide

medical care. In the complaint he says that he has not exhausted the grievance procedure

in jail, and that the reason he did not exhaust is that he was released on bail twenty-four

hours after the assault.

DISCUSSION

 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). Although once within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in prisoner

cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983, 988

(2002). All available remedies must now 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

Case 5:10-cv-01629-LHK Document 3 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 2
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

(2001). Similarly, exhaustion is a prerequisite to all inmate suits about prison life, whether

they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege

excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 122 S. Ct. at 992. 

Plaintiff here concedes nonexhaustion, so this case properly could be dismissed for

failure to exhaust. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003). He gives

as a reason for not exhausting that he was released, but the complaint was filed from the

San Mateo County Jail, and he does not explain why having been released would prevent

him from filing a grievance. 

Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to explain why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to exhaust. One way of doing so would be to show that the jail

grievance regulations do not allow filing a grievance after release, by providing either a

copy of the grievance regulations showing that or quoting, under oath, from the grievance

regulations. Since he apparently is back in the San Mateo County Jail, he should be able

to do that. But his response is not limited to that; he may present any basis he has for

avoiding the exhaustion requirement. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

exhaust. The case will be dismissed if he does not respond or if he is unable to establish

that exhaustion is not required within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.10\MALDONADO1629.OSC-P.wpd 

Case 5:10-cv-01629-LHK Document 3 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2