(PC) Williams v. Rocha

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 1, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-00095·Unknown

Opinion

LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00095-SKO (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR v. FAILURE TO EXHAUST

A. NOCHA, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. Plaintiff Lance Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff admits that he has failed to file an administrative grievance regarding his claims. (Doc. 1 at 3, 4.) The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under . . . 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). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and “unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation omitted). The exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). Generally, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. However, courts may dismiss a claim if failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: February 1, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Williams v. Rocha, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PC) Williams v. Rocha ((PC) Williams v. Rocha) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Booth v. Churner
532 U.S. 731 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Porter v. Nussle
534 U.S. 516 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Jones v. Bock
549 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Juan Albino v. Lee Baca
747 F.3d 1162 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)