(PC) Gilmore v. Bauder ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD DA’JUAN GILMORE, Case No. 1:19-cv-01229-NONE-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 14 BAUDER, (Doc. 30) 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Gilmore is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. This case 19 proceeds on his first amended complaint for claims of excessive force, retaliation, and deliberate 20 indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Bauder. (See Docs. 11, 12, 25.) 21 On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Plaintiff seeks Permission and 22 instructions on how to submit new evidence/allegations.” (Doc. 30.) Upon review of the 23 document, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion to file an amended complaint. 24 Plaintiff seeks to add additional allegations of retaliation against Defendant Bauder and former 25 Defendant Castillo concerning events from May 25, 2021, to June 7, 2021. (See id.) 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under . . . any other Federal law . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, 1 prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 2 exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and 3 “unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation 4 omitted). Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with 5 the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal 6 court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion requirement applies to all 7 inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the 8 relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 9 731, 741 (2001). 10 In his motion to amend the complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add allegations of retaliatory 11 actions by Bauder and Castillo that occurred between May 25, 2021, and June 7, 2021. (See Doc. 12 30.) Plaintiff’s motion, however, is dated June 8, 2021. (Id. at 4.) Given the proximity between 13 the subject incidents and the date Plaintiff submitted his motion, it is clear that Plaintiff failed to 14 exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the claims raised in the motion. Plaintiff may 15 not bring these “unexhausted claims . . . in court.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 211 (citation omitted). 16 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is DENIED. This order 18 does not preclude Plaintiff from filing a separate action concerning the incidents raised in his 19 motion once he has exhausted his administrative remedies, if otherwise appropriate. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: June 25, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27