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
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?