Hunt v. Del Pozzo et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/21/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 5/21/13*

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

ZACHARY HUNT,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. C 12-4700 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED

v.
RON N. DEL POZZO, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17
18

In this federal civil rights action, plaintiff alleges that two bailiffs in the San Jose

19

Superior Court used excessive force on him on October 27, 2011. His claims against two

20

state court judges and the local prosecutor were dismissed with prejudice in a prior order, and

21

the Court DENIES his motion to reconsider its dismissal of those claims (Docket No. 9). His

22

motion for discovery (Docket No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile

23

such motion after he has filed a response to this order.

24

It appears that plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies concerning the

25

bailiffs’ alleged use of excessive force. Prisoners must properly exhaust their administrative

26

remedies before filing suit in federal court. “No action shall be brought with respect to

27

prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined

28
No. C 12-4700 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

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

2

as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and is no

3

longer left to the discretion of the district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006)

4

(citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)).

5

To exhaust properly administrative remedies in California state prisons, inmates must

6

proceed through a four-step process, which consists of (1) an informal attempt at resolution;

7

(2) a first-level formal appeal; (3) a second-level appeal to the institution head; and (4) an

8

appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

9

See 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.5.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

As it appears that plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court

11

orders him to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust.

12

Plaintiff shall file an appropriate response to this order on or before July 1, 2013. Failure to

13

file by such date will result in the dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil

14

Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 9 and 10.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 21, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

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

No. C 12-4700 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE