Pettus v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 56

ORDER REQUIRING Supplemental Brief signed by District Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/18/2009. Plaintiff is ORDERED to notify the Court within 30 (thirty) days of this Order as to all of the steps he has undertaken to seek formal review of the issues remaining in his case within the BoP grievance process. Filing Deadline: 12/21/2009. (Bradley, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendant(s). NAKIA PETTUS, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 08-00741 CRB (PR) ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Now pending before the Court is Defendant D. Smith's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). A federal prisoner may seek formal review of an issue that relates to any aspect of his imprisonment under 28 C.F.R. 542.10. The procedure requires that the prisoner first address his complaint to the institution staff. See 28 C.F.R. 542.14(c)(4), Form BP-9. If dissatisfied with the response at that level, the inmate may appeal his complaint to the regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BoP"). See id. 542.15(a), Form BP-10. Finally, the prisoner may appeal his case to the General Counsel in the Central Office of the BoP, which is the "final 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 administrative appeal." See id., Form BP-11. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and his opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.1 Plaintiff has not clearly alleged that he availed himself of the BoP grievance process outlined above. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to notify the Court within 30 (thirty) days of this Order as to all of the steps he has undertaken to seek formal review of the issues remaining in his case within the BoP grievance process. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 18, 2009 CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge 26 27 28 As noted in the Court's August 31, 2009 Order re Defendant's Motion to Stay, the Court received Plaintiff's papers purporting to oppose Defendant's "motion for summary judgment or dispositive motion" and has construed such documents as an opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. G:\CRBALL\2008\0741ed\order requiring supp brief re exhaustion.wpd 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?