The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING SUIT
Plaintiff Ruben Contreras is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 1, 2008.
Plaintiff concedes that he has not exhausted the inmate appeal process but contends that delaying this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will cause irreparable harm and potentially violate his 14th Amendment right of due process. Plaintiff is pursuing injunctive relief against a transfer to an out-of-state prison.
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), "[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). Accordingly, prisoners are required to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). "A prisoner's concession to nonexhaustion is valid grounds for dismissal...." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 810 (2003).
To satisfy § 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use the available process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. "[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and... unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court." Jones, 549 U.S. at 211, citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002).
The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532. Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Exhaustion of prison grievance procedures is now mandatory, even if the procedures do not meet federal standards and even if they are not "plain, speedy, and effective." Porter, 534 U.S. at 524, quoting Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n. 5.
Although the PLRA requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, Plaintiff concedes that he failed to do so. Neither Plaintiff's potential constitutional claim nor his pursuit of injunctive relief excuse Plaintiff from the exhaustion requirement. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...