Canada v. Niebert

Filing 26

ORDER denying 23 Motion for 60-Day Extension of Time to file First Amended Complaint as moot. ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/28/2017. Show Cause Response due within 21-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD LEE CANADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

NIEBERT, et al,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 60-DAY
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
PRIOR TO FILING SUIT
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Case No. 1:17-cv-00873-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff Ronald Lee Canada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated

20

on June 23, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)

21

On September 15, 2017, prior to the screening of Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff filed a

22

motion to amend the complaint to identify the Doe Defendants as correctional officers Takahashi

23

and Keister. (ECF No. 12.) The Court granted the motion and directed Plaintiff to file a first

24

amended complaint with thirty days. (ECF No. 14.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff’s

25

first amended complaint was due on or before November 22, 2017. (See ECF Nos. 17, 20, 22.)

26

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for 60-day extension of time to file first

27

amended complaint, filed on November 14, 2017, (ECF No. 23), and Plaintiff’s first amended

28

complaint and notice regarding 602 form, both filed on November 27, 2017, (ECF Nos. 24–25).
1

1

I.

2

In his motion, Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension of time to file his amended complaint.

Motion for Extension of Time

3

Plaintiff explains that he needs additional time to obtain his third level appeal back from the

4

CDCR Chief of Inmate Appeals, in order to complete his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.)

5

As noted above, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was due on or before November 22,

6

2017. (See ECF Nos. 17, 20, 22.) Although Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and notice

7

regarding 602 form were not docketed until November 27, 2017, both documents include proofs

8

of service by mail or are dated November 19, 2017. (See ECF Nos. 24, p. 18; 25, p. 2.) Pursuant

9

to the prison mailbox rule, a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be filed as of the

10

date the prisoner delivered it to the prison authorities for mailing to the court clerk. See Houston

11

v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2009)

12

(mailbox rule articulated in Houston applies to civil rights actions). Thus, Plaintiff’s first

13

amended complaint was timely filed, and the motion for extension of time is denied as moot.

14

II.

First Amended Complaint

15

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), “[n]o action shall be

16

brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a

17

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

18

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust

19

the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211

20

(2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199–1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required

21

regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process,

22

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits

23

relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

24

In his motion for extension of time, Plaintiff states that he has not yet completed his third

25

level appeal. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff also concedes in his first amended complaint that although

26

he submitted an appeal concerning the facts contained in the complaint, he has not yet completed

27

the process. Plaintiff clarifies that his appeal remains pending at the third level, Log #KVSP-17-

28

01841. (ECF No. 24, p. 8.) Finally, Plaintiff’s notice to the Court regarding his 602 form merely
2

1

states that Plaintiff was intending to attach his 602 complaint to his amended complaint, but he

2

cannot do so because his legal property is with the CDCR appeals office. (ECF No. 25.)

3

However, Plaintiff does not state that he completed the administrative appeals process prior to

4

filing this suit. Thus, it appears Plaintiff filed suit prematurely without first exhausting his

5

administrative remedies in compliance with the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

6

III.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

8

1.

9
10

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion for 60-day extension of time to file a first amended complaint,

(ECF No. 23), is DENIED as moot;
2.

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one (21) days from the date of

11

service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to

12

exhaust prior to filing suit. See, e.g., Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (in rare

13

cases where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, it may be dismissed for

14

failure to state a claim); Medina v. Sacramento Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-0765 AC P,

15

2016 WL 6038181, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016) (“When it is clear from the face of the

16

complaint and any attached exhibits that a plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative

17

remedies before commencing an action, the action may be dismissed on screening for failure to

18

state a claim.”); Lucas v. Dir. of Dept. of Corrs., 2015 WL 1014037, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6,

19

2015) (relying on Albino and dismissing complaint without prejudice on screening due to

20

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit); and

21
22

3.

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with a Court order.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 28, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3