Hollis v. Bolanos
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-00769
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hollis v. Bolanos, Judge Orrick dismissed Hollis’s civil-rights lawsuit without prejudice because he had not completed required prison grievance procedures.
Tavijar Hollis’s lawsuit against Carlos G. Bolanos and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice because Hollis had not exhausted administrative remedies before filing.
What happened
In Hollis v. Bolanos, Tavijar Hollis alleged that jail employees brought five people with COVID-19 into the general population and housed them with people who did not have COVID-19, putting Hollis and other inmates at risk.
Hollis admitted that he had not tried to use the available administrative grievance process before filing his lawsuit. The court ruled that federal law required him to complete that process first, so his lawsuit could not proceed at that time.
Judge William Orrick dismissed the action without prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants. The order allowed Hollis to move to reopen the case after exhausting his administrative remedies, but required that motion to include a complete amended complaint meeting the court’s filing instructions.
The detailed version
- Hollis v. Bolanos · No. 3:22-cv-00769
- William Orrick
- May 18, 2022
Background
Tavijar Hollis sued Carlos G. Bolanos and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hollis alleged that, in January 2022, jail employees at the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office knowingly brought five inmates who had tested positive for COVID-19 into the general population and housed them with inmates who had not tested positive, placing Hollis and other inmates at risk.
Court’s analysis
Because Hollis was a prisoner seeking relief concerning prison conditions, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit about prison conditions under § 1983 or another federal law.
Hollis admitted that he had not exhausted or attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court stated that exhaustion is mandatory and that a case must be dismissed when the prisoner did not complete the process before filing, even if exhaustion occurs while the case is pending. The court therefore did not allow the action to proceed at that time.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the § 1983 action without prejudice to Hollis moving to reopen it after exhausting his administrative remedies. Any motion to reopen must have “MOTION TO REOPEN” on its first page and include an amended complaint making clear that Hollis exhausted those remedies. The amended complaint must use the caption and case number from the order, identify itself as “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and be submitted on the court’s form. It must include every claim and defendant Hollis wishes to pursue and may not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference.
The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the file. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.