(PC) Woolridge v. CDCR, et al., No. 1:2009cv00158 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/3/09: Recommending dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit 1 ; Objections to F&R due by 5/6/2009. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF

(PC) Woolridge v. CDCR, et al. Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSHUA TODD WOOLRIDGE, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00158-AWI-GSA PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING SUIT C A L IF O R N IA D E P A R T M E N T O F CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, (Doc. 1) et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS Defendants. / 15 16 17 18 Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint I. Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Plaintiff Joshua Todd Woolridge is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law. Plaintiff 20 filed this action January 26, 2009. 21 Plaintiff concedes that he has not exhausted the inmate appeal process but contends that it 22 is unconstitutional, violating Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment right of due process. Plaintiff adds that 23 he is pursuing injunctive relief against the lockdown that is the subject of his appeal. See Doc. 1, 24 p. 2, ¶ IIC. 25 Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), “[n]o action shall be 26 brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by 27 a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 28 remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Accordingly, prisoners are 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 required to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 2 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). “A 3 prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is valid grounds for dismissal . . . .” Wyatt v. Terhune, 4 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). 5 To satisfy § 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use the available process 6 to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); McKinney, 7 supra, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and . . . unexhausted 8 claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones, supra, 549 U.S. 211 (citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 9 516, 524 (2002). 10 The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter, 11 supra, 435 U.S. at 532. Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner 12 and regardless of the relief offered by the process. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 13 Exhaustion of prison grievance procedures is now mandatory, even if the procedures do not meet 14 federal standards and even if they are not “plain, speedy, and effective.” Porter, supra, 534 U.S. 15 at 524 (quoting Booth, supra, 532 U.S. at 739 n. 5). 16 Plaintiff’s cryptic reference to “not meeting time restraints in error” does not obviate the 17 exhaustion requirement. Plaintiff had fifteen days after the order locking down Black prisoners 18 was issued on January 11, 2009, to file an administrative appeal. 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 19 3084.6(a). When Plaintiff completed his federal complaint on January 22, 2009, four days 20 remained in which he could file his prison grievance. Since Plaintiff concedes that he did not 21 pursue his administrative remedies, there is no basis to infer that Plaintiff contends that prison 22 officials failed to meet time constraints. 23 III. 24 Conclusion and Recommendation Although the PLRA requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing 25 suit, Plaintiff concedes that he failed to do so. Further, neither Plaintiff’s constitutional 26 objections to the prison grievance process nor his pursuit of injunctive relief excuse Plaintiff 27 from the exhaustion requirement. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS dismissal 28 of this action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 2 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 3 thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file 4 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 5 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 6 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 7 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 6i0kij April 3, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.