Silva v. Worth et al

Filing 20

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that This Action be DISMISSED, Without Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies Prior to Filing Suit re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/12/2017. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANTHONY SILVA,
Plaintiff,

11

(Doc. 1, 19)

v.

12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

Defendants.

10

WORTH, et al.,

13

1:16-cv-01131-AWI-SKO (PC)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

14
15
16

Plaintiff, Anthony Silva, is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On June 6, 2017, an order issued (“the OSC”) for

17
Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one (21) days why this action should not be dismissed
18
because of his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit as was
19
apparent from the face of his Complaint. (Doc. 19.) More than a month has lapsed and Plaintiff
20
has not responded to the order to show cause.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

In the OSC, Plaintiff was warned that the failure to exhaust prior to filing suit is fatal to an
action under § 1983. (Doc. 19.) As stated therein, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
requires that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. §
1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones
v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201

28
1

1

(9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and

2

regardless of the relief offered by the process. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

exhaustion requirement applies to all suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516
(2002). Exhaustion under § 1997(e) is an affirmative defense, Jones, at 216, most commonly
raised by a defendant in a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169-70 (9th Cir. 2014).
However, “the PLRA mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and
requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit.” Jones, at 202.
Exhaustion is an issue of “judicial administration” that is “appropriately decided early in the
proceeding.” Albino, at 1170 (citing Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51
(1938) (referring to the “long-settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to
judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has

12

been exhausted”). Where, as here, a prisoner’s failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the

13
complaint, it is properly addressed at screening for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
14
be granted. Albino, at 1168-69.
15
As noted in the OSC, although Plaintiff checked the boxes indicating he exhausted
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

available administrative remedies, his request for review at the third level was cancelled as
untimely. (Doc. 1, p. 2.) This was confirmed by an exhibit Plaintiff attached to the Complaint.
(Id., p. 13.) This action must be dismissed without prejudice because of Plaintiff’s admitted
failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without
prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

28
2

1

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

2

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

July 12, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.