Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07759/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07759-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Jose Castro
Plaintiff
Tiffine Thomas
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JOSEPH JOSE CASTRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIFFINE THOMAS,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-7759 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Joseph Jose Castro, an inmate at Deuel Vocational Institute, filed this pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he complained that a correctional officer

verbally harassed and pushed his face into a wall while he was incarcerated at San Quentin

State Prison. His complaint is now before the court for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A.

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2).

There is an exhaustion problem in this action. "No 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

Case 3:06-cv-07759-MHP Document 3 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The State of California provides its

inmates and parolees the right to appeal administratively "any departmental decision, action,

condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." See

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies

within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal

resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level

appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third level appeal to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections. See id. § 3084.5; Ngo v. Woodford, 126 S. Ct. 2378,

2383 (2006); Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). Nonexhaustion

under § 1997e(a) is usually an affirmative defense, but a complaint may be dismissed by the

court for failure to exhaust if a prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no exception to

exhaustion applies." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).

The materials submitted by Castro plainly show he has not exhausted administrative

remedies. On the form complaint, Castro checked "no" in response to the question "is the

last level to which you appealed the highest level of appeal available to you?" Complaint, p.

2. He wrote that he had received an informal response "but when I shot it to the first level I

never received it back." Id. The first exhibit attached to the complaint was an inmate request

dated November 28, 2006, in which Castro asked what had happened to his inmate appeal

and whether he needed to file another inmate appeal. The response was dated December 4,

2006 and stated that the "first level was partially granted on 11-17-06. When did you

resubmit?" He apparently did nothing further vis-a-vis the inmate appeal before mailing the 

complaint to the court on December 12, 2006. Although he may not have received a copy of

the first level decision when it was issued on November 17, 2006, he did not seek a

replacement copy of the first level decision and did not pursue the appeal to a higher level

before filing this action. Castro's efforts did not satisfy the requirement that he exhaust

administrative remedies before filing his action in federal court. For the foregoing reasons,

this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new action after he exhausts

his administrative remedies. 

Case 3:06-cv-07759-MHP Document 3 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The in forma pauperis application is DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff filing a

new application with any new civil rights complaint. (Docket # 2.) No fee is due. The clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2007 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07759-MHP Document 3 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 3