United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before me on a Motion for Summary Judgment 
filed by all defendants. For the reasons below, I GRANT
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment  without
judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute of
material fact, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A
genuine dispute of a material fact is "one that could
reasonably be resolved in favor of either party."
Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.
2004). The initial burden for a motion for summary judgment
is on the moving party to identify the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once that burden is satisfied, the
burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate, through
the production of evidence, that there remains a
"genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).
nonmoving party may not rely on the pleading allegations or
"unsupported conjecture or conclusory statements."
Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc., 343 F.3d 1107,
1112 (9th Cir. 2003); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint
Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P 56(e)). All reasonable doubts and inferences to be
drawn from the facts are to be viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). A
district court should "construe liberally motion papers
and pleadings filed by pro se inmates." Thomas v.
Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010).
argue they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff
Colby Aplin failed to exhaust her available prison
administrative remedies on her claims as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Defendants
also argue that Ms. Aplin's claims fail on the merits
because Defendants did not violate any of Ms. Aplin's
constitutional rights. Because I agree that Ms. Aplin has
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, I do not
address the question of the merits of Ms. Aplin's claims.
assert they are entitled to summary judgment on Ms.
Aplin's claims because Ms. Aplin failed to exhaust her
available administrative remedies before filing this action.
The PLRA requires that prisoners exhaust all available prison
administrative remedies before filing an action with respect
to prison conditions under any federal law. 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a). Exhaustion requires appealing the grievance
decision to the highest level within the grievance system.
Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir.
2002). Individuals who are prisoners at the time they file
suit must comply with the PLRA's exhaustion requirements.
Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021, 1023-24 (9th
Cir. 2009). Prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies
before filing suit, not during the course of the action.
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.
Multnomah County Sherriff s Office ("MCSO") has a
grievance process to address inmate concerns. Bugard Decl.
 at 27-28. The grievance must be specific about the
incident at issue, including the date, time, and names of the
staff members involved. Id. Prisoners can address
one event per grievance and must file the grievance within
five days of the incident. Id. Defendants have
provided evidence that Ms. Aplin filed two grievances related
to the claims in her complaint and did not appeal either.
Defs.' Mot. for Summary J.  at 5-6.
Aplin's Response  alleges that Defendants did not
serve their Motion for Summary Judgment at her correct
address. I find this unpersuasive. Ms. Aplin filed a Notice
of Change of Address  on the docket on February 11, 2019.
Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on April
10, 2019, serving Ms. Aplin at the address listed in the
February 11. Mot. for Summ. J. . Ms. Aplin then filed
another Notice of Change of Address  on May 10, 2019.
Defendants served their Motion for Summary Judgment at the
address that was on record for Ms. Aplin at the time they
Ms. Aplin attached to her Declaration  a grievance
regarding her mail claim, which she did appeal. Aplin Decl.
 Ex. 1 at 2-3. This grievance was filed in April 2019
regarding an incident that took place in March 2019.
Id. The PLRA requires that prisoners exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit, not during the
action. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199. Ms. Aplin was a
prisoner when she brought this action; she filed her
Complaint on June 26, 2018, and filed her Amended Complaints
on August 23 and October 24, 2018. [7, 11].Accordingly, the
April 2019 grievance was filed after the action had been
filed. Ms. Aplin did not file grievances related to any of
her other claims.
construing Aplin's filings liberally and viewing the
facts in a light most favorable to her, Ms. Aplin has failed
to demonstrate that she exhausted her administrative
remedies. The evidence shows that Aplin did not exhaust her
available prison administrative remedies on any of her
claims. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary
aforementioned reasons, I GRANT Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment  and dismiss Ms. Aplin's claims
without prejudice. Ms. Aplin may file an amended complaint
within twenty-one days of this order. Failure to file an
amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action. In
light of my decision granting Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment , I DENY Ms. Aplin's Motion for
Summary Judgment , Motion for Name ...