(PC) Henley v. Burnes ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZURI HENLEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01101-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 14 BURNES, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Zuri Henley, a state prisoner, initiated this civil rights action on August 13, 2019. (See 18 Doc. 1.) In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that between August 12, 2019, and 19 August 23, 2019, correctional officers at California State Prison, Corcoran, subjected him to 20 retaliation, including not providing him meals, for filing a lawsuit against CDCR. (See Doc. 7 at 21 1, 3-4.) Plaintiff states that he filed an administrative grievance, but it “is still currently being 22 processed.” (Id. at 1.) 23 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect 24 to prison conditions under … any other Federal law … by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, 25 or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 26 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and “unexhausted 27 claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation omitted). Inmates 28 are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable 1 procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” 2 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate 3 suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief 4 sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 5 741 (2001). Generally, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead 6 and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. However, courts may dismiss a claim if failure to exhaust 7 is clear on the face of the complaint. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). 8 It is clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 9 remedies prior to filing suit on August 13, 2019. Though Plaintiff’s allegations are troubling, 10 “exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 211. Accordingly, within 21 11 days, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed, without 12 prejudice, for his failure to exhaust. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary 13 dismissal. Plaintiff is advised that failure to timely respond to this order will result in dismissal of 14 this action with prejudice for failure to obey a court order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28