Meador

Meador v. Pleasant Valley State Prison

Good Law
333 F. App'x 177
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 21, 2009No. 07-15678California590 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

William Langston Meador (Meador) appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Sua sponte dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA is only appropriate if, taking the prisoner’s factual allegations as true, the complaint establishes his failure to exhaust and, thus, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15 , 127 S.Ct. 910 , 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l).

Although Meador concedes in his complaint that his prison appeal was untimely, his complaint does not establish his failure to properly exhaust available administrative remedies. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that any concession of nonexhaus-tiori must be clear). The California prison system’s appeal requirements define the boundaries of proper exhaustion. As we recently noted, an inmate in the California prison system “must submit an appeal within fifteen working days of the event or decision being appealed, but the appeals coordinator is only…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.