(PC)Broadnax v. State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COTTRELL L. BROADNAX, Case No. 1:20-cv-00043-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 16 17 Plaintiff Cottrell L. Broadnax, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 initiated this civil rights action on October 31, 2019. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that prison 19 officials falsely charged him with battery on a peace officer and failed to provide him medical 20 services. (See Doc. 19 at 3.) Plaintiff explicitly states that he “bypass[ed]” the inmate appeals 21 process and did not present his claims for administrative review prior to filing suit. (Id. at 1, 2.) 22 Accordingly, on May 5, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action 23 should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 34.) The Court 24 cautioned Plaintiff that his response must be legible. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff filed a response on May 25 18, 2020. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff submitted his response on a CDCR “Inmate/Parolee Request for 26 Interview” form, on which he writes at different angles in print that is very difficult to read. (See 27 id.) From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff merely repeats the claims in his complaint. 28 (Compare Doc. 35 with Doc. 19 at 3.) Plaintiff does not, however, deny that he failed to exhaust 1 administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with 3 respect to prison conditions under … any … Federal law … by a prisoner confined in any jail, 4 prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 5 exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and 6 “unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation 7 omitted). Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with 8 the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal 9 court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion requirement applies to all 10 inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the 11 relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 12 731, 741 (2001). Generally, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant must 13 plead and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. However, courts may dismiss a claim if failure to 14 exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 15 2014). 16 It is clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 17 remedies prior to filing suit. Though Plaintiff raises serious claims that, if proven, may entitle him 18 to relief, “exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 211. Exhaustion, 19 moreover, must be completed before the filing of a complaint; it cannot be completed during the 20 pendency of lawsuit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); cf. Rhodes v. 21 Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005-07 (9th Cir. 2010). Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust, the Court 22 RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the 23 Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. 24 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 26 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 27 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 1 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 2 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Sheila K. Oberto 5 Dated: May 20, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28