Woods v. Acosta et al

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this 1 Action be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies Prior to Filing Suit; Objections Due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/5/2012. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 5/8/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CHARLES WOODS, JR.,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01699 LJO GSA PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST
AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

v.
C/O ACOSTA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS
/

14
15
16
I.

Screening Requirement

17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant
19
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
20
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
21
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
22
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
23
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
24
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
25
“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
26
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a
27
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
28
1

1

II.

Plaintiff’s Claims

2

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

3

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Ironwood State Prison, brings this civil rights action against defendant

4

correctional officials employed by the CDCR at CCI Tehachapi. Plaintiff names the following

5

individual defendants: Correctional Officer (C/O) Acosta; C/O Olmos; C/O Clinerd. Plaintiff

6

claims that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Specifically, Plaintiff

7

alleges that he was denied showers on a regular basis.

8

In Section II of the complaint, Plaintiff indicates that there is an inmate grievance process at

9

CCI Tehachapi and that he filed a grievance. However, Plaintiff indicates that the grievance process

10

is not complete. Plaintiff indicates that, at the time the complaint was filed, he was still waiting for

11

the process to be completed. Plaintiff states that due to the seriousness of the alleged violation, “I

12

wish to further this and proceed in this action.”

13

A.

14

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

15
16
17

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States. . . to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.
. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,
or other proper proceeding for redress.

18
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
Section 7 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was
20
amended to read as follows:
21
22
23
24

(a) APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. No
action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section
1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (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.

25

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In Booth v. Churner,532 U.S. 731 (2001). The Supreme Court, in

26

addressing the question of whether a prisoner need exhaust available remedies when monetary

27

damages are unavailable, held that “Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, regardless

28

of the relief offered through administrative procedures.” Id. at 1821. In order to bring his claim in
2

1

federal court, plaintiff must completely exhaust his available administrative remedies.

2

“The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that a prisoner exhaust available administrative

3

remedies before bringing a federal action concerning prison conditions.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d

4

1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009)(citing 42 U.S.C.§ 1997e(a)). “[T]he PLRA exhaustion requirement

5

requires proper exhaustion.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). This means that a prisoner

6

must “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,

7

including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Marella v. Terhune, 568

8

F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting Ngo, 548 U.S. at 88).

9

The Court of Appeals has held that District Courts are required under Prison Litigation

10

Reform Act (PLRA) to dismiss actions without prejudice where prisoner failed to exhaust

11

administrative remedies prior to filing suit but was in process of doing so when motion to dismiss

12

was filed. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002).

13

A prisoner's concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal of an action. Wyatt

14

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003); McKinney 311 F.3d at 1200-01. Because Plaintiff's

15

complaint contains a concession to nonexhaustion of available administrative remedies, this action

16

should be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new civil rights action after Plaintiff has

17

exhausted available administrative remedies.

18

III.

Conclusion and Order

19

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that Plaintiff has not exhausted his

20

available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Because Plaintiff concedes that he has failed

21

to exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court finds that this defect cannot be cured by further

22

amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigant must be given

23

leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

24

could not be cured by amendment).

25
26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
prejudice to re-filing after Plaintiff has exhausted his available administrative remedies.

27

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

28

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days
3

1

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

2

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

3

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

4

and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

5

objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner

6

v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the specified time may

7

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
6i0kij

April 5, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4