Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01792/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01792-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Gonzales
Plaintiff
Rodriguez
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

MICHAEL GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01792-OWW-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO

FILING SUIT

(Doc. 1) 

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

December 11, 2006. 

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). 

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance

system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated by

Case 1:06-cv-01792-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Four levels of appeal are involved, including the

informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal level, also known as the

“Director’s Level.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days of the

event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level,

or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c).

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he filed an inmate appeal and completed the process.

(Comp., § II.) Plaintiff alleges that the relevant appeals are included as exhibits, and contends,

“Enclose relevant 602s would be relevant to other who are just doing the same over again. It would

be futile[.] It would be denied again.” (Id.) A review of the claims in plaintiff’s complaint and the

exhibits reveal that in the past, plaintiff filed and exhausted inmate appeals concerning conduct

similar to that at issue in this action. However, plaintiff’s exhausted appeals do not grieve the

actions and omissions taken by the defendants in this action.

“All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet federal

standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing to Booth,

532 U.S. at 739 n.5). “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted claims

cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007) (citing Porter, 435 U.S.

at 524). Neither an argument of futility nor exhaustion of similar past conduct satisfies the

exhaustion requirement. In order to pursue the claims alleged in the complaint in federal court,

plaintiff is required to first file an inmate appeal grieving the conduct at issue and exhaust the

process. Plaintiff has not done so and may not proceed with his complaint. 

Because it is clear from plaintiff’s complaint that he did not exhaust the available

administrative remedies 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 claim 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)

Case 1:06-cv-01792-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

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: April 10, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01792-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3