Smith v. Chau
3:13-cv-01337
S.D. Cal.Oct 17, 2013Background
- Carey K. Smith, a transgender inmate at RJD, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging denial of medication and discrimination by RJD medical staff.
- Smith filed the initial pleading and inmate grievance forms (CDCR 602) but those appeals were still pending when he signed the complaint on April 10, 2013.
- After filing in the Northern District of California, the case was transferred to the Southern District for improper venue.
- The Court denied Smith’s IFP motion for procedural defect, later received his trust account statement, and conducted the PLRA/§ 1915A screening.
- Smith conceded he had not exhausted all available administrative remedies before commencing this suit.
- The Court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to exhaust under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and denied IFP and appointment of counsel as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith exhausted administrative remedies before filing | Smith had submitted CDCR 602 appeals and pursued administrative process | Defendants (and record) show appeals were still pending and not fully exhausted | Dismissal: Smith conceded non-exhaustion; remedies not exhausted prior to suit |
| Whether court may stay case to allow exhaustion after filing | Smith effectively sought to proceed with suit while grievances pending | Defendants argue exhaustion must precede filing; no stay required or available | Court held exhaustion is precondition to suit; no stay to cure post-filing exhaustion |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | Smith implicitly sought adjudication without completed exhaustion | Defendants sought dismissal for non-exhaustion | Dismissal without prejudice to refiling after complete exhaustion |
| Whether to grant IFP / appoint counsel given non-exhaustion | Smith sought IFP and counsel appointment | Defendants opposed (or moot given non-exhaustion) | Motions denied as moot because case dismissed for non-exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2011) (PLRA screening authority and procedure)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion requirement under PLRA applies before suit)
- Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2003) (prisoner concession of non-exhaustion is valid ground for dismissal)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2001) (exhaustion requirement is mandatory)
- McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion must occur before filing; no post-filing cure)
- Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2006) (complaint is filed when tendered to clerk; exhaustion required before filing)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion rule and limits re: supplemental claims)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (standards for administrative exhaustion)
- Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2005) (final decision from Director satisfies exhaustion)