Johnson v. Risenhoover et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/16/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 *E-Filed 12/16/11* 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 v. RISENHOOVER, et al., Defendants. / 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, 16 18 No. C 10-5638 RS (PR) BYRON JOHNSON, INTRODUCTION This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state prisoner. For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is GRANTED, and the action is hereby DISMISSED. BACKGROUND In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants, employees of Pelican Bay State Prison, failed to provide constitutionally adequate accommodations in response to plaintiff’s vision impairments. Defendants assert that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies until May 17, 2011, five months after the instant action was filed. These assertions are undisputed, plaintiff not having filed an opposition. 28 No. C 10-5638 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL DISCUSSION 1 2 Prisoners must properly exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in 3 federal court. “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. 4 § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other 5 correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 6 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and is no longer left to the discretion of the 7 district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 8 731, 739 (2001)). 9 An action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted his available United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 administrative remedies before he or she filed suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts while 11 the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see Vaden v. 12 Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (where administrative remedies are not 13 exhausted before the prisoner sends his complaint to the court it will be dismissed even if 14 exhaustion is completed by the time the complaint is actually filed). 15 According to the undisputed record, plaintiff’s claims were not exhausted prior to the 16 filing of his suit. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss the action is GRANTED, and 17 all claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff refiling his complaint. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: December 16, 2011 RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 No. C 10-5638 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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?