Westfall v. Aguayo et al
Filing
35
ORDER: Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 32 . Signed on January 22, 2009 by Judge Thomas M. Coffin for Judge Ann L. Aiken. (cp)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JASON WESTFALL, Plaintiff, v. MAX WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. AIKEN, District Judge. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Oregon Civil No. 07-1670-AA ORDER
department of Corrections, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights are violated by (1) the conditions of confinement in the Intensive
Management Unit [at the Oregon State Penitentiary]; and (2) the imposition of disciplinary fines when he has no means to pay them. On October 20, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (#32) on the ground that plaintiff has not exhausted
1 - ORDER
administrative remedies with respect to the claims alleged in his complaint. Plaintiff did not respond to defendants'
motion and the motion came under advisement by the court on November 24, 2008. On December 3, 2008, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing by January 2, 2009, why defendant's unopposed motion should not be all owed. Plaintiff was advised that
failure to show cause as directed by the court would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff has not responded to the court's order. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a) requires that inmates exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (2002);Booth v. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 531-32 Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001); Wyatt v.
Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003); Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2002); and McKinney v. Carely, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002). The Oregon Department of Corrections has a grievance system to address inmate complaints. It is undisputed on the
record before the court that plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the claims alleged in his complaint. Therefore, plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2 - ORDER
Defendant's motion to dismiss (#32) is allowed. action is dismissed.
This
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 22 day of January, 2009. /s/ Ann Aiken Ann Aiken United States District Judge
3 - ORDER
]]>
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?
