Jackson v. Fong, No. 15-15547 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal on summary judgment of plaintiff's action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as a "prisoner" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The panel held, however, that a plaintiff, like the one here, who was in custody at the time he initiated his suit but was free when he filed his amended operative complaint was not a "prisoner" subject to a PLRA exhaustion defense. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of a prisoner’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiff filed his lawsuit while a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison in California. After his release, he amended his complaint with leave of court. The district court then granted summary judgment to the defendants based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as a “prisoner” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The panel held that a plaintiff who was in custody at the time he initiated his suit but was released from custody when he filed his amended operative complaint is not a “prisoner” subject to a Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion defense. Accordingly, in this case plaintiff was not a prisoner when he filed his operative third amended complaint, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants. Concurring in the judgment, Judge McCalla stated that the district court improperly determined that plaintiff had not exhausted his claims, not because the Prison Litigation Reform Act was inapplicable to his post-release third amended complaint, but because plaintiff’s failure to exhaust was excusable under § 1997e(a). Judge McCalla would find
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.