Hays v. Wasco State Prison Doctors et al

Filing 10

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed, Without Prejudice, for Failure to Exhaust Prior to Filing Suit 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/25/15: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JONATHAN HAYS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
WASCO PRISON MEDICAL DOCTORS, et
al.,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00453-JLT (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILUE TO EXHAUST
PRIOR TO FILING SUIT
(Doc. 1)

15
Defendants.
16
17

21-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Jonathan Hays, claims he suffered a violation of his Eighth Amendments rights

18 related to the medical treatment he received and failed to receive related to an injury to his leg.
19

Notably, however, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides,“[n]o action shall be

20 brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a
21 prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative
22 remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust
23 the available administrative remedies before filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007);
24 McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless
25 of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v.
26 Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits relating to
27 prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).
28

In his complaint, Plaintiff concedes that while there is a grievance procedure at the

1 institution, he did not present the facts in his complaint for review through the grievance
2 procedure, explaining that he had a broken leg that needed to be fixed "ASAP." (Doc. 1, Comp.,
3 pp. 1-2.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff filed suit prematurely without first exhausting the
4 administrative remedies in compliance with section 1997e(a).
5

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause in writing within 21 days

6 from the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice,
7 for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003)
8 (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. . . .”).
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 25, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2