Williams v. Pfieffer, et al.

Filing 4

ORDER for Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why Claims he is Currently Exhausting Should not be Dismissed without Prejudice for Failure to Exhaust signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 04/25/2017. Show Cause Response due by 5/30/2017.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10
11

Case No. 1:17-cv-00549-EPG (PC)

DONALD LEE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY CLAIMS HE IS
CURRENTLY EXHAUSTING SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
(ECF NO. 1)

v.
C. PFIEFFER,
Defendants.

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

12
13
14

Donald Williams (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant

15

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 18, 2017.

16

(ECF No. 1). The complaint is awaiting screening.

17

The Court has reviewed the complaint, and it appears that Plaintiff has exhausted at

18

least some of his claims. However, on one of his exhibits, Plaintiff wrote “I am currently

19

exhausting all my administrative remedies (appeals) regarding several CDCR-602’s [sic] staff

20

complaints related to the beaten [sic] and sexual misconduct described [in] the 1983 civil

21

complaint.” (ECF No. 1, p. 43).

22

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison

23

conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in

24

any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available

25

are exhausted.” Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and

26

regardless of the relief offered by the administrative process, unless “the relevant

27

administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action whatsoever

28

in response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); Ross v. Blake,
1

1

136 S.Ct. 1850, 1857, 1859 (June 6, 2016). Exhaustion of administrative remedies must occur

2

before the filing of the complaint. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002).

3

The Court notes that a dismissal for failure to exhaust is without prejudice. Id.

4

Based on the exhibits Plaintiff included with his complaint, it appears that Plaintiff may

5

not have exhausted his administrative remedies, at least in regards to some of his claims.

6

Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why all claims that he is “currently

7

exhausting” should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative

8

remedies. In particular, Plaintiff should explain his statement that he is “currently exhausting”

9

his administrative remedies.

10

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30)

11

days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why all claims that he is

12

“currently exhausting” should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust

13

administrative remedies. Failure to respond may result in dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:

April 25, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2