Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05035/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Basler
Defendant
Bining
Defendant
K. Sirwet
Defendant
Donald L. Stevens
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD LAROY STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER AT CTFSOLEDAD, K. SIRWET-BINING, M. A.

BASLER, A. BERNAL, 

Defendants _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-5035 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2, 3, 5)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C

§ 1983, complaining about the conditions of his confinement. In the complaint, Plaintiff

states that he has not exhausted all of his administrative remedies to the highest level

available, alleging that he is “trying to complete the appeal procedures as I file this action

(Complaint at 2). Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED in a

separate order filed simultaneously (docket nos. 2, 5).

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 3:09-cv-05035-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 4
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, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996) (“PLRA”) provides: “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 as are available

are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and not left to the

discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2382 (2006). 

Exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether such

actions involve general conditions or particular episodes, whether they allege excessive

force or some other wrong, and even if they seek relief not available in grievance

proceedings, such as money damages. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). The

exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of all available administrative

remedies. Woodford, 126 S. Ct. at 2387. 

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

be dismissed for failure to exhaust only if failure to exhaust is obvious from the face of

the complaint and/or any attached exhibits. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). The court may dismiss a complaint for failure to exhaust where

the prisoner “conce[des] to nonexhaustion” and “no exception to exhaustion applies.” Id.

at 1120. Here, Plaintiff concedes in his amended complaint that he has not exhausted his

administrative remedies (Complaint at 1-2), and no exception to exhaustion is alleged or

apparent in the amended complaint. 

Section 1997e(a) requires that Plaintiff exhaust his claim before raising the claim

in a § 1983 complaint in federal court. An action must be dismissed unless the prisoner

exhausted his available administrative remedies before he or she filed suit, even if the

prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199 (9th Cir. 2002). As it is clear from the complaint that Plaintiff has not pursued all

levels of administrative review available to him in exhausting his complaint and there is

Case 3:09-cv-05035-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 4
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

no applicable exception to the exhaustion requirement, dismissal without prejudice is

appropriate. 

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

Plaintiff’s refiling his claim after all available administrative remedies have been

exhausted. Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot

(docket no. 3). The Clerk shall terminate all motions as decided by this order, close the

file and enter judgment in favor of Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2010 

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05035-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 4
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

DONALD L. STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

K. SIRWET-BINING et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-05035 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 19, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Donald L. Stevens 

K-57251

P.O. Box 705

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: April 19, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-05035-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/19/10 Page 4 of 4