Reynolds v. Rouch et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why this Case Should not be Dismissed without Prejudice for Failure to Exhaust, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/3/17. Show Cause Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:17-cv-01029-EPG (PC)
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
P. ROUCH, et al.,
(ECF NO. 1)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Dyllin Reynolds (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action
on August 2, 2017. (ECF No. 1). The complaint is awaiting screening.
The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the complaint, and it appears that
Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Plaintiff has stated that
there is a grievance procedure available at his institution and that he filed a grievance
concerning the facts related to the complaint, but that he did not complete the grievance
process. (Id. at 2.).
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, 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.” Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and
regardless of the relief offered by the administrative process, unless “the relevant
administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action whatsoever
in response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); Ross v. Blake,
136 S.Ct. 1850, 1857, 1859 (June 6, 2016).
Exhaustion of administrative remedies must occur before the filing of the complaint.
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court notes that a dismissal for
failure to exhaust is without prejudice. Id.
While there are no “special circumstances” exceptions to the exhaustion requirement,
Ross, 136 S.Ct. at 1862, “the [administrative] remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the
prisoner.” Id. at 1856.
Based on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust
his available administrative remedies. Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust available
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30)
days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not
be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
Failure to respond may result in dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 3, 2017
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?