Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00894-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Fleming
Plaintiff
Pazin
Defendant

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

ARNOLD FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF PAZIN, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00894-OWW-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Arnold Fleming (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 12132

(Americans with Disabilities Act). Plaintiff filed this action on July 14, 2006, and alleges that his

rights under the Eighth Amendment and ADA were violated. 

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). 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). 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 exhaustion

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

///

Case 1:06-cv-00844-OWW-SMS Document 10 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:06-cv-00894-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/26/07 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

In this instance, plaintiff states in his complaint that the exhaustion requirement does not

apply. Plaintiff is suing Merced CountySheriff Pazin for conditions plaintiff was subjected to while

in jail and plaintiff filed suit while he was incarcerated. Therefore, the exhaustion requirement

applies to this suit. “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims cannot

be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, Nos. 05-7058, 05-7142, 2007 WL 135890, at *8 (Jan. 22, 2007)

(citing Porter, 435 U.S. at 524). Because is it clear from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that he did

not exhaust prior to filing suit, 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, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting his claims

prior to filing suit.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00844-OWW-SMS Document 10 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:06-cv-00894-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2