(PC) Currie v. Newsom
2:20-cv-00503
| E.D. Cal. | Apr 8, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Walter Currie, a state prisoner housed at Mule Creek State Prison since 2011, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against 14 defendants (including the Governor and CDCR officials) alleging contaminated prison water violated his Eighth Amendment right and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection.
- Currie sought damages and a governor’s pardon/commutation; he also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the court granted and assessed the statutory filing fee.
- The complaint expressly admits Currie did not exhaust prison administrative remedies before filing; he contends exhaustion is unnecessary because he is a whistleblower under California Government Code § 8547 and cites a state audit.
- The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and applied PLRA exhaustion rules, finding exhaustion is a mandatory precondition to filing any suit challenging prison conditions.
- The court held the state Whistleblower statute does not excuse PLRA exhaustion (it applies to state employees, not prisoners) and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust; leave to amend was denied as futile but plaintiff may refile after administratively exhausting his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Currie was required to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA before filing | Currie argued he need not exhaust because he is a whistleblower under Cal. Gov’t Code § 8547 | PLRA mandates exhaustion of available administrative remedies for challenges to prison conditions | Held: PLRA exhaustion required; Currie failed to exhaust and action must be dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether California’s Whistleblower Act (§ 8547) excuses PLRA exhaustion | § 8547 exempts whistleblowers from administrative exhaustion, per Currie | State statute does not alter federal PLRA requirements; § 8547 applies to state employees, not prisoners | Held: § 8547 does not excuse exhaustion; inapplicable to prisoner and cannot override PLRA |
| Whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable such that exhaustion could be excused | Currie implied special circumstances (whistleblower/audit) made remedies unavailable | Defendants assert remedies were available and exhaustion is mandatory absent a showing remedies were unavailable | Held: Currie did not show remedies were unavailable; Ross and Ninth Circuit law require exhaustion unless remedies are effectively unavailable |
| Whether to grant leave to amend after screening dismissal | Currie sought to proceed despite lack of exhaustion | Defendants implicitly argue dismissal is warranted until exhaustion occurs | Held: Leave to amend denied as futile because failure to exhaust is clear from the complaint; dismissal without prejudice recommended so Currie may refile after exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (PLRA requires exhaustion before filing suits challenging prison conditions)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion must comply with procedural rules of prison grievance system)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. 2016) (courts may not excuse failure to exhaust except where remedies are objectively unavailable)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2001) (exhaustion required regardless of the relief sought)
- Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion serves efficiency and improves administrative record)
- Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (sua sponte dismissal appropriate when failure to exhaust is clear from complaint)