Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03903/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03903-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
Eduardo Chavez
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

EDUARDO CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-3903 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed this

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 regarding his classification as a prison

gang member. On the complaint, Plaintiff states that he did not exhaust his claims to the

highest level of appeal through the inmate grievance procedure. Plaintiff states that his

grievance process is still in “its first stage.” Complaint at 1-2.

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).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

Case 3:09-cv-03903-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/14/10 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

(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.

 The State of California provides its prisoners and parolees the right to appeal

administratively “any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by

those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare.” 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 review, (2) first

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

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

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. See Barry v Ratelle, 985 F.

Supp 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final

decision from the Director’s level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under §

1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38. 

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

Case 3:09-cv-03903-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/14/10 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

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

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

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

apparent in the complaint. Section 1997e(a) requires that Plaintiff present his claim to

each level of administrative review set forth above, including the Director’s level of

review, 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, and there is 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. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in favor of Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 14, 2010

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03903-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/14/10 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

EDUARDO CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-03903 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 January 14, 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.

Eduardo Chavez

F22243

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 

Dated: January 14, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-03903-JSW Document 8 Filed 01/14/10 Page 4 of 4