Jones v. Mailroom Officials, et al.
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/15/2017. Show Cause Response due within 21-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:17-cv-00281-AWI-SKO (PC)
GARLAND A. JONES,
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES PRIOR TO FILING SUIT
MAILROOM OFFICIALS, et al.,
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Garland A. Jones, a state prisoner is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this action under to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
“[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 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002).
Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief
offered by the process. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The exhaustion requirement
applies to all suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516 (2002).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his legal mail has been frequently opened. Plaintiff
checked the boxes on the form complaint indicating that administrative remedies are available at
the institution. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-5.) However, he checked the boxes that he did not submit a request
for administrative relief on any of his claims as well as the boxes indicating that he did not appeal
his request for relief, on any of his claims, to the highest level. (Id.) In his explanation, Plaintiff
wrote “Initial request for administrative relief monetary have filed complaints.” (Id.) This does
not adequately explain why Plaintiff did not appeal the issues in his claims to the highest level.
It, therefore, appears that Plaintiff filed suit prematurely, without first having exhausted available
administrative remedies in compliance with section 1997e(a). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,
1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to non-exhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal.
. . .”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days from the date of
service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for his failure to
exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely
respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action for Plaintiff's failure to obey a
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 15, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?