Byrd v. Lynn et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/20/13 ordering that within 14 days of the date of this order defendant Lynn shall file a reply to plaintiff's objections and show cause as to why plaintiff should not be excused from complying with the exhaustion requirement in light of his objections, sworn declaration and exhibits. Alternative defendant Lynn may move to withdraw the pending motion to dismiss. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:10-cv-0839 KJM DAD P
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 23, 2013, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations,
recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit be granted. Plaintiff has filed objections to the
findings and recommendations in which he contends that the court should excuse him from
complying with the exhaustion requirement because the defendant thwarted his attempts to
exhaust his retaliation claim. Specifically, plaintiff acknowledges that prison officials twice
screened out his inmate appeal regarding defendant Lynn’s alleged retaliatory conduct because he
failed to attach CDC Form 128-G to it. However, in his objections, plaintiff contends that he
repeatedly requested a copy of the appropriate CDC Form 128-G from defendant Lynn, but the
defendant refused to provide it to him. Plaintiff has attached to his objections a declaration
signed under penalty of perjury to this effect as well as what appears to be a copy of an inmate
appeal in which he complained to prison officials that his counselor was refusing to provide him
with a copy of the CDC Form 128-G necessary to file his inmate appeal.
A prisoner may be excused from complying with the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement if
he establishes that the existing administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See
Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010). See also Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217,
1226 (9th Cir. 2010) (excusing an inmate’s failure to exhaust because he was precluded from
exhausting administrative remedies by a warden’s mistaken instruction to him that a particular
unavailable document was needed for him to pursue his inmate appeal).
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date
of this order defendant Lynn shall file a reply to plaintiff’s objections and show cause as to why
plaintiff should not be excused from complying with the exhaustion requirement in light of his
objections, sworn declaration, and exhibits. Alternatively, defendant Lynn may move to
withdraw the pending motion to dismiss.
Dated: December 20, 2013
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?