Cranford v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 23

AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 10/21/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2008) Modified on 10/23/2008 (kc, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendant(s). / TERRY OAK CRANFORD, Plaintiff, No. C 07-04611 SBA (PR) AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has not exhausted California's prison administrative process, however. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [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." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although once within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). All available remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies "need not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Id. (citation omitted). Even when the prisoner seeks relief not available in grievance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

proceedings, notably money damages, exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit. Id.; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Similarly, exhaustion is a prerequisite to all prisoner suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532. PLRA's exhaustion requirement requires "proper exhaustion" of available administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94 (2006). The State of California provides its prisoners the right to appeal administratively "any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). It also provides them the right to file appeals alleging misconduct by correctional officers/officials. Id. § 3084.1(e). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution; (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form; (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee; and (4) third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision from the Director's level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). Id. at 1237-38. Non-exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense which should be brought by defendants in an unenumerated motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). However, a complaint may be dismissed by the court for failure to exhaust if a prisoner "conce[des] to nonexhaustion" and "no exception to exhaustion applies." Id. at 1120. Here, Plaintiff concedes he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not presented any extraordinary circumstances which might compel that he be excused from complying with PLRA's exhaustion requirement. Cf. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6 (courts should not read "futility or other exceptions" into § 1997e(a)). Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after exhausting California's prison administrative process. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (action must be dismissed without prejudice unless prisoner 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

exhausted available administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is pending). The Clerk of the Court shall close the file and terminate any pending motions. The Court has rendered its final decision on this matter; therefore, this Order TERMINATES Plaintiff's case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 10/21/08 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Cranfo rd4611.AmendedDISexh.wpd

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRY OAK CRANFORD, Plaintiff, v. CA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS et al, Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04611 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on October 22, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Terry D. Cranford J-79096 600 Morgan Street Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Dated: October 22, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Cranfo rd4611.AmendedDISexh.wpd

4