Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00412-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Correctional Institution
Defendant
Willie Weaver
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION LEGAL LAW LIBRARY, et

al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-0412-OWW-DLB P

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

PRIOR TO FILING SUIT 

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Willie Weaver (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 10, 2006, but has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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 section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

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 v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

“Proper exhaustion[, which] demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical

procedural rules . . . .” is required, Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006), and must occur

Case 1:06-cv-00412-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 08/08/07 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

2

prior to filing suit, McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff has filed over one-hundred forty-two actions in this district, the vast majority of

which were filed in 2006, and on November 17, 2006, in case number 1:06-cv-01343-AWI-WMW

P, Magistrate Judge William Wunderlich issued an order to show cause why plaintiff should not be

declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to a pre-filing review order. Recently, the court has

dismissed numerous cases based on plaintiff’s concession in his complaint that exhaustion of his

claim had not yet occurred. See e.g., 1:06-cv-01066-AWI-SMS P; 1:06-cv-01102-AWI-SMS P;

1:06-cv-01198-AWI-SMS P; 1:06-cv-01204-OWW-SMS P 1:06-cv-01206-AWI-SMS P. In this

action, plaintiff alleges that he filed an inmate appeal and the process is complete.

However, in his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2006, he was denied access to

the law library. Plaintiff dated his complaint April 3, 2006, and it was received and filed on April

10, 2006. The court finds that it is an impossibility for plaintiff to have properly utilized the prison’s

administrative grievance process, which involves one informal level and three formal levels of

appeal, Cal. Code Regs. , Tit. 15 § 3084.5 (2006), and exhausted his appeal when the events upon

which he is attempting to impose liability occurred on the date he drafted his complaint.

This action is therefore DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to

comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) byexhausting the available administrative remedies prior to filing

suit.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00412-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2