Richardson v. Cullen et al

Filing 28

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/18/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2011)

*E-Filed 11/18/11*

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
FORREST M. RICHARDSON,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-00459 RS

Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

12
13

v.
VINCENT CULLEN, Acting Warden, San
Quentin State Prison, et al.,

14
15

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
17
18

Plaintiff Forrest Richardson, an inmate at the California State Prison at San Quentin, brings

19

this suit alleging defendants are depriving him of medications for high blood pressure and pain

20

management that were prescribed by his treating physician. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation

21

Reform Act, a federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

22

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28

23

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any

24

claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

25

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

26

Furthermore, prisoners must properly exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in

27

federal court. “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. §

28

1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
NO. C 11-00459 RS
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

1

facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

2

Exhaustion is mandatory and is no longer left to the discretion of the district court. See Woodford v.

3

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)).

4

In this case, Richardson concedes that, at the time of filing his complaint, he had not

5

exhausted his administrative remedies: “Plaintiff is bringing this action before exhausting his

6

administrative remedies as he would ordinarily be required to do, however, because to delay further

7

would result in the continuing denial of his rights and would cause him to be further deprived of his

8

essential medications, which deprivation is causing him continuing and serious medical harm.”

9

Complaint at 7:26-8:2. As this Court previously denied Richardson’s motions for preliminary
injunctive relief, the complaint must now be dismissed without leave to amend for failure first to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

exhaust administrative remedies. The Clerk shall close the file

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: 11/18/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 11-00459 RS
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2