(PC) Trimble v. Rayls et al, No. 2:2005cv01862 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2005)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/21/05 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing this action. Referred to Judge David F. Levi. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Trimble v. Rayls et al Doc. 4 Case 2:05-cv-01862-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/22/2005 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM LEROY TRIMBLE, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1862 DFL DAD P vs. SGT. RAYLS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff, a Yolo County Jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 19 The district court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates seeking 20 relief against a governmental entity or against any officer or employee of a governmental entity. 21 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In the present case, plaintiff has sued five officers employed by the 22 Sheriff of Yolo County at the Monroe Detention Center. Plaintiff alleges as follows: when he 23 was brought to the facility on June 7, 2005, he informed defendants Rayls and Frisco during the 24 1 25 26 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application does not include a certified copy of plaintiff’s jail trust account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Such a statement would be required if this action were to proceed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-01862-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/22/2005 Page 2 of 3 1 booking process that he is a prison gang dropout and has safety concerns; defendants Rayls and 2 Frisco failed to take plaintiff’s concerns seriously; plaintiff was housed in the general population, 3 where he was assaulted by inmates; on June 17, 2005, plaintiff was released to continue his term 4 of parole; plaintiff was arrested and returned to the detention center on June 23, 2005; plaintiff 5 again voiced safety concerns during the booking process but was housed in the general 6 population; on July 21, 2005, plaintiff became aware that another inmate was urging plaintiff’s 7 cell mate to stab plaintiff; plaintiff sent a message to staff by means of inmates in a neighboring 8 cell; in response to the message, defendants Westra and Holts removed plaintiff from his cell and 9 took him to booking; in booking, plaintiff informed defendants Westra, Holts, and Zetwetz of his 10 safety needs; defendants Westra, Holts, and Zetwetz placed plaintiff back in his cell, where he 11 was assaulted; after the second assault, plaintiff was moved to administrative segregation. 12 Plaintiff seeks an investigation of the officers at the Monroe Detention Center as well as a large 13 sum of damages for cruel and unusual punishment as well as unspecified discrimination. 14 Plaintiff alleges that a grievance procedure is available at the institution and that 15 he has filed a grievance concerning the facts relating to his complaint. Plaintiff affirmatively 16 alleges that the grievance process is not completed. 17 Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be 18 brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . , or any other Federal law, by a 19 prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 20 remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The exhaustion of prison 21 administrative procedures is required regardless of the relief offered through such procedures. 22 Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A remedy is deemed to be “available” for purposes 23 of § 1997e(a) as long as the administrative process has authority to take some action in response 24 to the prisoner’s grievance, even if the action that might be taken is not the remedial action 25 sought by the prisoner. Id. at 736. Courts are not permitted to read futility or other exceptions 26 into the statutory exhaustion requirements. Id. at 741 n.6. 2 Case 2:05-cv-01862-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/22/2005 Page 3 of 3 1 A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal of an 2 action. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 3 1198, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). In the present case, plaintiff’s complaint contains a 4 concession to nonexhaustion of available administrative remedies. This action should be 5 dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new civil rights action after plaintiff completes the 6 grievance process and thereby exhausts available administrative remedies. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 8 without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies before 9 bringing this action. 10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 11 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 12 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 13 written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections 14 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 15 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 16 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: September 21, 2005. 18 19 20 DAD:13 trim1862.efr 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
