Jackson v. King County Adult Corrections

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE DAWNTE JACKSON, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-569 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. KING COUNTY et al., Defendants. On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff Dawnte Jackson and King County Defendants jointly moved to “dismiss this case with prejudice because the parties agree that the Prison Litigation Reform Act bars this case due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.” Dkt. No. 20 (emphasis added). The parties stipulated that “Mr. Jackson filed grievance #1221-029 regarding this incident, but he failed to appeal it in accordance with King County Jail grievance procedures.” Id. In cases that are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the general practice is to dismiss without prejudice, thereby allowing claimants to re-file after satisfying the exhaustion requirement. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Requiring dismissal without prejudice when there is no presuit exhaustion... will further... Congressional objectives|.]”); Ornelas v. Giurbino, 358 F. Supp. 2d 955, 962 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“The dismissal, however, is without prejudice. Thus, Plaintiff may re-file a new action after Section 1997e(a) has been satisfied, is after Plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies as to all Defendants and any and all claims raised against them.”). Here, Plaintiff and Defendants request this Court to apply the PLRA exhaustion requirement to dismiss Plaintiffs claim with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 20. Because this request deviates from general practice, the Court ORDERS the parties show cause, in writing, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, why dismissal should be with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s calendar for September 17, 2024. It is so ORDERED. Dated this 3rd day of September, 2024. po le-— JamalN. Whitehead United States District Judge