GARRETT v. FINANDER (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-29No. No. 20-55209

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Garrett's § 1983 action because Garrett failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies in compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's mandatory exhaustion requirement.

Craig Kaiser Garrett, a California state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his federal civil rights lawsuit challenging medical care decisions by prison officials. Garrett filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The district court dismissed his case on the ground that Garrett did not complete the required administrative remedy process before filing suit, as mandated by federal law.

The appellate court reviewed the dismissal without deference to the district court's legal conclusions about the exhaustion requirement. The court determined that the district court correctly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires prisoners to fully pursue available administrative remedies following all applicable procedures and deadlines before bringing a lawsuit in federal court. Because Garrett's failure to exhaust administrative remedies was evident from the complaint itself, dismissal was appropriate.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 civil rights action
Whether failure to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with applicable procedural rules and deadlines is grounds for dismissal
Application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion requirements

Procedural posture

Garrett appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Craig Kaiser Garrett appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (legal rulings on exhaustion); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garretts action because Garrett failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies in a timely manner as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See Ross v. Blake, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (proper administrative exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to suit); see also Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a district court may dismiss for failure to state a claim).

All pending requests are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.