Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04316/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04316-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Evans
Defendant
Kevin D. Walker
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN D. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL EVANS, et al., 

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-4316 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

On July 14, 2006, plaintiff a California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the facilities have not been properly maintained and

the three meals he receives per day are not sufficient. He has applied for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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). In its review, the court must identify any

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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 id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however, must

be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988).

Case 3:06-cv-04316-MMC Document 3 Filed 12/11/06 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

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). The exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and not

merely directory. Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983, 988 (2002). All available remedies

must 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 (2001). Exhaustion is a

prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such actions involve

general conditions or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some

other wrong. Porter, 122 S. Ct. at 992. 

Because exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a complaint may be

dismissed for failure to exhaust only where such deficiency is obvious from the face of the

complaint and/or attached exhibits, see Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir.)

(2003), cert. denied Alameida v. Wyatt, 540 U.S. 810 (2003), or where the prisoner has

“conceded nonexhaustion" and "no exception to exhaustion applies." Id. at 1120. Here,

plaintiff concedes in his complaint that he has not exhausted his administrative appeals,

stating he did not present his claim for review through the grievance procedure “because

you only have 15 days to use grievance procedure, these conditions have been ongoing for

over a year.” (See Complaint at 2.) 

There is no authority for the proposition that exhaustion is excused where the

challenged prison condition is “ongoing.” Indeed, as the very purpose of administrative

grievances is to redress inadequate prison conditions, this Court will not to read such an

exception into the exhaustion requirement. See, e.g., Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6 (stating

Supreme Court “will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion

requirements”). 

Case 3:06-cv-04316-MMC Document 3 Filed 12/11/06 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

In sum, under § 1997e(a), plaintiff was required to present his claims to each level

of administrative review before raising those claims in a § 1983 complaint in federal court. 

Because it is clear from the complaint that plaintiff has not done so, and there is no

applicable exception to the exhaustion requirement, the instant complaint is subject to

dismissal. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to

plaintiff’s refiling his claim after all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. 

 In light of the dismissal, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and no fee is

due. 

This order terminates Docket No. 2. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006 

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04316-MMC Document 3 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3