Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110405_0004999.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 16:33:59
Document Index: 226272381

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1997', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 3084']

| Gustavo Roman v. Edward Washington
GUSTAVO ROMAN, PLAINTIFF,v.EDWARD WASHINGTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Gustavo Roman, an inmate confined at North Kern State Prison ("North Kern"), filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint concerns events alleged to have occurred while he was housed at Deuel Vocational Institute ("DVI"). In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
In addition, before a plaintiff may commence a civil rights action concerning prison conditions, he or she must exhaust the administrative remedies that are available. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, ___ (2002). While a plaintiff's failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense requiring proof of facts outside the pleadings, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003), where it appears from the face of the complaint that exhaustion has not occurred, the court may dismiss the action under § 1915A. See Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2002). The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Here, plaintiff has provided on his complaint that he did not file an administrative grievance regarding the facts alleged in his complaint. Dckt. No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff provides as explanation that the incident complained of did not occur at the facility where he is currently housed. Id. Plaintiff's transfer from DVI to North Kern does not excuse his obligation to administratively exhaust the claims contained in his complaint. The transfer occurred between institutions that are both under the control of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and are governed by the same regulations concerning administrative grievances (California Code of Regulations, title 15, §§ 3084.1-3084.9). Nothing in those regulations prevents an inmate from filing a grievance regarding events occurring at a different institution than where the inmate is currently housed. Plaintiff's transfer from DVI to North Kern does not fall within the exceptions for failure to exhaust under current law. See, e.g., Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1223-26 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing potential exceptions to the exhaustion requirement and holding that, where a warden's mistake rendered a litigant's administrative remedies effectively unavailable, the litigant was excused from exhausting his claim); see also Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that the plaintiff's transfer to various locations under the custody of different officials did not relieve his obligation to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit).
Thus, to proceed plaintiff must file an amended complaint describing what exception to the exhaustion requirement, if any, his case falls under.
Any amended complaint must additionally adhere to the following requirements: It must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.