Ingram v. Bolanos

Background

Sirvontre Ingram, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that jailors 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 tested negative, putting Ingram and other inmates at risk.

Court’s analysis

Because Ingram was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officials, the court screened his 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 an action about prison conditions under § 1983 or another federal law.

Ingram admitted that he had not exhausted, or even attempted to exhaust, his administrative remedies. The court treated that failure as barring the action from proceeding at that time. It stated that exhaustion must occur before the prisoner files suit, even if the prisoner completes the process while the case is pending. The court therefore did not reach the merits of Ingram’s allegations about the handling of inmates with COVID-19.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the § 1983 action without prejudice to Ingram moving to reopen the suit after exhausting his administrative remedies. Any motion to reopen must be labeled “MOTION TO REOPEN” on its first page and include an amended complaint making clear that Ingram exhausted those remedies. The amended complaint must use the caption and case number in the order, be labeled “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and appear on the court’s form. It must include all claims and defendants Ingram wishes to pursue and may not incorporate an earlier complaint by reference. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the file.