Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110214_0002428.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:04:10+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's third amended complaint against Defendant Wilber for violation of Plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and California Civil Code section 52.1. On September 9, 2010, Defendant Wilber filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the unenuemerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, Doc. 119. *fn1 On December 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed his opposition. *fn2 Pl.'s Opp'n, Doc. 136. On December 27, 2010, Defendant filed his reply.
Def.'s Reply, Doc. 135. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
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 are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey , 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner , 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle , 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

References: § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1997
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.