×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Dismissal for Failure to Exhaust Reversed
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed a federal district court's dismissal of a California state prisoner's 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint.
Alonzo Lee Taylor appealed the judgment of a federal district court where the court dismissed Taylor's second amended complaint (SAC) on grounds that the complaint, on its face, showed that Taylor did not exhaust administrative remedies.
The district court also denied Taylor's motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that "[b]oth the SAC and the exhibits Taylor submitted to the district court show that Taylor alleged that he exhausted to the extent possible on each issue that forms the factual basis for the claims in the SAC." The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See: Taylor v. Melching, 60 Fed.Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2003).
Alonzo Lee Taylor appealed the judgment of a federal district court where the court dismissed Taylor's second amended complaint (SAC) on grounds that the complaint, on its face, showed that Taylor did not exhaust administrative remedies.
The district court also denied Taylor's motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that "[b]oth the SAC and the exhibits Taylor submitted to the district court show that Taylor alleged that he exhausted to the extent possible on each issue that forms the factual basis for the claims in the SAC." The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See: Taylor v. Melching, 60 Fed.Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Taylor v. Melching
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 60 Fed.Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2003). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
ALONZO LEE TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LINDA L. MELCHING; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
No. 02-16769
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
60 Fed. Appx. 680; 2003 U.S. App.
March 10, 2003 **, Submitted
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
March 19, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Complaint dismissed at Taylor v. Clarke, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22711 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2004)
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-99-04190-MMC. Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding. Taylor v. Clarke, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6368 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 3, 2002)
DISPOSITION: Judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COUNSEL: ALONZO LEE TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Soledad, CA.
JUDGES: Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*681] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Alonzo Lee Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint without prejudice and its order denying reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), [**2] we reverse and remand.
The district court incorrectly found that it was clear from the face of Taylor's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that he had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies. Both the SAC and the exhibits Taylor submitted to the district court show that Taylor alleged that he exhausted to the extent possible on each issue that forms the factual basis for the claims in the SAC. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A was in error. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003)(requiring district court to further examine factual record in light of defendants' burden to raise and prove the absence of exhaustion).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the district court to allow the action to proceed unless the district court finds other reasons for dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
No. 02-16769
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
60 Fed. Appx. 680; 2003 U.S. App.
March 10, 2003 **, Submitted
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
March 19, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Complaint dismissed at Taylor v. Clarke, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22711 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2004)
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-99-04190-MMC. Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding. Taylor v. Clarke, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6368 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 3, 2002)
DISPOSITION: Judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COUNSEL: ALONZO LEE TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Soledad, CA.
JUDGES: Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*681] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Alonzo Lee Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint without prejudice and its order denying reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), [**2] we reverse and remand.
The district court incorrectly found that it was clear from the face of Taylor's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that he had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies. Both the SAC and the exhibits Taylor submitted to the district court show that Taylor alleged that he exhausted to the extent possible on each issue that forms the factual basis for the claims in the SAC. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A was in error. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003)(requiring district court to further examine factual record in light of defendants' burden to raise and prove the absence of exhaustion).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the district court to allow the action to proceed unless the district court finds other reasons for dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.