Webb v. Dunkin
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-02040
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Webb v. Dunkin, Judge Tigar dismissed the action without prejudice for premature filing and denied or granted related requests.
Anthony L. Webb’s § 1983 action was dismissed without prejudice because he filed it before completing the required prison grievance process. His counsel and stay requests were denied as moot; his request for pleading copies was granted subject to fees and a form.
What happened
Anthony L. Webb, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, sued under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that E. Shedxi Dunkin called him a “rat” in front of other inmates after Webb filed grievances, and he sought protection, an order stopping retaliation, damages, and appointed counsel.
The court found that the allegations could support a claim that officials were deliberately indifferent to Webb’s safety. But Webb had not completed the prison grievance process before filing the lawsuit. Although he completed that process several days later, the court said the law required completion before filing, so it dismissed the action without prejudice.
Judge Tigar denied Webb’s requests for appointed counsel and a stay as moot, denied his request to use another case number, and granted his request for copies of the pleadings, subject to completing a form and paying the required fees. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendant and close the case.
The detailed version
- Webb v. Dunkin · No. 4:22-cv-02040
- Jon Tigar
- June 14, 2022
Background
Anthony L. Webb, an inmate at Maguire Correctional Facility, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that E. Shedxi Dunkin called him a “rat” in front of numerous inmates on March 17, 2022, in retaliation for Webb’s filing of grievances. Webb alleged that this violated the Eighth Amendment and requested emergency declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, appointment of counsel, and other relief.
The court reviewed the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s prisoner-screening requirement, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court said that, when liberally construed, the allegations stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to inmate safety. That means the court found the allegations sufficient at the screening stage to assert that officials failed to protect Webb from a safety risk.
Exhaustion ruling
The court dismissed the action because Webb had not exhausted available administrative remedies before filing suit. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete the available prison grievance process before bringing an action concerning prison conditions. The record indicated that Webb began the grievance process on or around March 19, 2022, and completed it on or about March 25, 2022. Because he filed the action before completing that process, the court held that dismissal was required even though exhaustion occurred while the case was pending.
The court therefore DISMISSED this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
Other requests and final disposition
The court DENIED as moot Webb’s request for appointment of counsel and DENIED as moot his request to stay the action. The court DENIED Webb’s request that the action be assigned the case number 22-cv-00777-JST, explaining that each case number identifies a separate action. The court GRANTED Webb’s request for copies of the pleadings, subject to his completing a photocopy form and paying the necessary fees.
The order directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and against Webb, deny all pending motions as moot, and close the case. The order was signed by United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.