35 F.4th 705
9th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Shikeb Saddozai alleged excessive force after being shot by correctional officer Clawson at San Quentin while incarcerated.
- Prison grievance process: initial grievances in Aug–Sep 2018 were rejected for procedural defects; a procedurally compliant grievance was filed Oct 2, 2018; final administrative denial issued Feb 5, 2019 — both parties agree exhaustion was complete by then.
- Saddozai filed a pro se federal complaint on Sept 11, 2018 (before exhaustion) and later amended multiple times; the district court treated the third amended complaint (filed Mar 6, 2020) as the operative complaint.
- The district court nonetheless dismissed the operative complaint for failure to exhaust because exhaustion had not been complete when the original complaint was filed.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit applied Jackson v. Fong and reversed, holding the operative (amended) complaint — filed after exhaustion — controls the PLRA exhaustion analysis; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PLRA exhaustion is measured at the time of the initial filing or the time of the operative complaint | Operative (amended) complaint controls; exhaustion satisfied by the time the operative complaint was filed | Exhaustion must exist at the time the suit is initiated; later amendment cannot cure initial failure to exhaust | Operative complaint controls; dismissal for lack of exhaustion was error (followed Jackson v. Fong) |
| Whether Jackson v. Fong is distinguishable or conflicts with Ross v. Blake | Jackson governs; Rule 15 permits supplementation and can cure earlier defects | Jackson is an outlier and incompatible with Ross; should be limited | Jackson is consistent with Ross and controls here; Ross does not undermine Jackson |
| Whether allowing later amendment to cure exhaustion invites abuse | Rule 15 and PLRA safeguards allow cure; operational concerns addressed by three-strikes and filing-fee rules | Permits prisoners to file premature suits hoping to cure later | Policy arguments rejected; other PLRA mechanisms deter abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding operative/amended complaint controls PLRA exhaustion analysis)
- Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (explaining narrow availability exception to PLRA exhaustion)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion is mandatory and an affirmative defense)
- Ramirez v. Collier, 142 S. Ct. 1264 (2022) (discussing that initial lack of exhaustion can be cured by subsequent filings)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (supplemental pleadings can defeat an earlier affirmative defense)
- Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring separate suits would promote inefficiency contrary to PLRA goals)
- Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2014) (forcing separate suit for claims later exhausted does not further PLRA policy)