MAXINE M. CHESNEY, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff, a California prisoner at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages against prison officials for denying him anti-inflammatory pain medication and ground nut butter for three days. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that "[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). The State of California provides its prisoners and parolees the right to appeal administratively "any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. See Barry v Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5). A final decision from the Director's level of review satisfies the exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38.
The new exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and not merely directory. See Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 1997). Moreover, plaintiff must plead that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding 1997e requires allegation of exhaustion with "sufficient specificity"). Plaintiff states he has not exhausted his administrative remedies because he only seeks money damages in this action. Exhaustion is not excused on that basis. See Booth v. Churner, U.S. — (2001), S.Ct. (2001), 2001 WL 567712 *4 (U.S. May 29, 2001) ("We think that Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures."). Section 1997e(a) requires that plaintiff pursue his claims to the Director's level of review before raising those claims in a § 1983 action in federal court.
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after plaintiff exhausts available administrative remedies. See See White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593, 595 (6th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court's sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies). Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis accordingly is DENIED. All pending motions are terminated and the clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Comments