(PC) Thomas v. Reyna

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT QUINCY THOMAS, 1:19-cv-01217-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR v. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES L. REYNA, et al., (ECF No. 1.) Defendants.

Plaintiff, Robert Quincy Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 4, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff indicates that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies at the prison, stating: “I have filed the grievance but the grievance process can take months to exhaust within CDCR, and due to the seriousness of my claim and me feeling that named defendants are a threat to my life, I got to file my claim as soon as possible. Administrative remedies will be exhausted.” (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff concedes that the exhaustion process was not completed when he filed the Complaint. (Id.) Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002). Prisoners are required to exhaust before bringing suit. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741. From the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, it appears clear that Plaintiff filed suit prematurely and in such instances, the case may be dismissed. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (where failure to exhaust is clear from face of complaint, case is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b(6)); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. . . .”) (overruled on other grounds by Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168-69); see also Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915A ‘incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).’”) (quoting Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)). Therefore, Plaintiff shall be required to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust remedies prior to filing suit. /// /// /// /// /// In light of the foregoing analysis, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to respond in writing to this order, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Failure to respond to this order may result in the dismissal of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE