Succaw v. Marsh, et al.
Filing
14
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending to Dismiss Action, Without Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Concession of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/6/2012, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within 21 Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CHRISTOPHER SUCCAW,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
T. MARSH, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01197-AWI-GBC (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING TO DISMISS ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR PLAINTIFF’S
CONCESSION OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Docs. 9, 13
/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS
15
16
I. Introduction
17
On July 23, 2012, Plaintiff Christopher Succaw (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro
18
se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On
19
August 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, conceding non-exhaustion, and stating that
20
he filed his complaint prematurely because the Chief of Inmate Appeals did not respond with sixty
21
(60) days. See Am. Compl. at 1, Doc. 9. Plaintiff states that subsequent to the filing of the complaint,
22
on July 31, 2012, the Chief of Inmate Appeals issued a decision at the third level of review. Id. at
23
2, 5-6.
24
On September 18, 2012, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this
25
action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s concession of failure to exhaust
26
administrative remedies. Doc. 13. Plaintiff did not submit a response to the order to show cause.
27
//
28
//
Page 1 of 4
1
II. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
2
A. Legal Standard
3
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), “[n]o action shall be
4
brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a
5
prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies
6
as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is
7
therefore mandatory, and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548
8
U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)). The PLRA’s exhaustion
9
requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of administrative remedies. Ngo, 548 U.S. at 93. This
10
means “[p]risoners must now exhaust all ‘available’ remedies,” id. at 85, in “compliance with an
11
agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Id. at 90–91. The requirement cannot be
12
satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or
13
appeal.” Id. Further, the remedies “available” need not meet federal standards, nor need they be
14
“plain, speedy and effective.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002); Booth, 532 U.S. at 739-40
15
& n.5.
16
It is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper
17
exhaustion. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). The California Department of Corrections and
18
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) provides inmates the right to file administrative appeals alleging
19
misconduct by correctional officers or “any departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which
20
they can demonstrate as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15,
21
§§ 3084.1(a) & (e). In order to exhaust all available administrative remedies within this system, a
22
prisoner must submit his complaint as an inmate appeal on a 602 form, within fifteen1 working days
23
from the date the administrative decision or action being complained of, and proceed through several
24
levels of appeal: (1) informal level grievance filed directly with any correctional staff member; (2)
25
first formal level appeal filed with one of the institution’s appeal coordinators; (3) second formal
26
level appeal filed with the institution head or designee; and (4) third formal level appeal filed with
27
28
1
As of July 2011, inmates have thirty calendar days to file appeals. § 3084.8(b).
Page 2 of 4
1
the CDCR director or designee. Id. at §§ 3084.5 & 3084.6(c); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262,
2
1264–65 (9th Cir. 2009); Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). See Ngo v.
3
Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) (Ngo II) (finding claims unexhausted where filed
4
more than fifteen working days after deadline).
5
A prisoner’s concession to non-exhaustion is valid grounds for dismissal so long as no
6
exception to exhaustion applies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th
7
Cir. 2003). The Court may review exhibits attached to the complaint that may contradict Plaintiff’s
8
assertions in the complaint. Tyler v. Cuomo, 236 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000); Durning v. First
9
Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). In deciding . . . failure to exhaust administrative
10
remedies, the Court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Wyatt, 315
11
F.3d at 1119-20. If the Court concludes that the prisoner has failed to exhaust administrative
12
remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal without prejudice. Id.
13
B. Analysis
14
A prisoner’s concession to non-exhaustion is valid grounds for dismissal so long as no
15
exception to exhaustion applies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120. As stated above,
16
in Plaintiff’s amended complaint, he concedes non-exhaustion, stating that he filed his complaint
17
prematurely because the Chief of Inmate Appeals did not respond with sixty (60) days. See Am.
18
Compl. at 1, Doc. 9. Plaintiff states that subsequent to the filing of the complaint, on July 31, 2012,
19
the Chief of Inmate Appeals issued a decision at the third level of review. Id. at 2, 5-6. Thus,
20
Plaintiff conceded non-exhaustion prior to filing this action. “[A] district court must dismiss a case
21
without prejudice ‘when there is no pre-suit exhaustion,’ even if there is exhaustion while suit is
22
pending.” Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1204 (2007)
23
(quoting McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)).
24
In Ngo, the Supreme Court held that “full and proper exhaustion of administrative remedies
25
is necessary, which means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that
26
the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” See Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 90, 94. “Proper exhaustion
27
demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no
28
adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course
Page 3 of 4
1
of its proceedings.” Id. at 91, 103. While the Supreme Court recognized that this may be harsh and
2
will prevent certain prisoner cases from proceeding, the “centerpiece of the PLRA’s effort to reduce
3
the quantity . . . of prisoner suits is an ‘invigorated’ exhaustion provision, § 1997e(a).” Id. at 84 &
4
103. “Exhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the district court, but is mandatory.” Id. at 85.
5
Plaintiff concedes that he failed to exhaust all his mandatory administrative remedies against
6
defendants prior to initiating this action, which requires mandatory dismissal, in accordance with §
7
1997e(a) and Ngo.
8
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
9
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
10
1.
11
This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s concession of failure
to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);
12
2.
All pending motions are MOOT for review; and
13
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
14
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
15
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21)
16
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
17
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
18
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
19
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
20
1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated:
7j8cce
November 6, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?