Diaz v. Vasquez, et al.
Filing
13
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Regarding Exhaustion signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/12/2012. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ,
1:12-cv-00732-GBC (PC)
10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING
EXHAUSTION
Plaintiff,
11
v.
(Doc. 1)
12
CAPT. VASQUEZ, et al.,
13
14
Defendants.
/
15
16
I.
17
Miguel Enrique Diaz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
18
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed his
19
original complaint. Doc. 1. On page two of the form complaint, Plaintiff states that he has not
20
completed exhaustion of administrative remedies due to the fact that he wishes to seek an emergency
21
injunction before the Court. Doc. 1 at 2.
Factual and Procedural Background
22
23
II.
24
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, "[n]o action shall be brought with
25
respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
26
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are
27
available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available
28
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney
Exhaustion Requirement
1
1
v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court must dismiss a case without
2
prejudice even when there is exhaustion while the suit is pending. Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164,
3
1170 (9th Cir. 2005).
4
Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner. Booth v. Churner, 532
5
U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001). A prisoner must “must use all steps the prison holds out,
6
enabling the prison to reach the merits of the issue.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.
7
2009); see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005). A prisoner’s concession to
8
non-exhaustion is valid grounds for dismissal so long as no exception to exhaustion applies. 42
9
U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003).
10
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the California Department of Corrections and
11
Rehabilitation has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. Cal. Code Regs., tit.
12
15 § 3084.1 (2011). The process is initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2. Three
13
levels of appeal are involved, including the first formal level, second formal level, and third formal
14
level, also known as the "Director's Level." Id. at § 3084.7. Appeals must be submitted within thirty
15
calendar days of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal
16
to the informal level, or in some circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.8.
17
In order to satisfy section 1997e(a), California state prisoners are required to use the available
18
process to exhaust their claims prior to filing suit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378,
19
2383 (2006); McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. “[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and
20
. . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 918-19 (citing Porter, 435
21
U.S. at 524). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet
22
federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (quoting
23
Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5).
24
There is no exception to the exhaustion requirement for imminent harm. Jones v. Sandy,
25
2006 WL 355136 at *11 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2006). Because it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s
26
complaint that he has not yet exhausted, this action should be dismissed. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt
27
v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a
28
valid grounds for dismissal . . . .”).
2
1
III.
Conclusion and Order
2
Because it appears that Plaintiff has not completed the grievance process, the Court
3
HEREBY ORDERS: Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL
4
SHOW CAUSE why the action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
5
remedies.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated:
0jh02o
July 12, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?