(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, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE 13 v. TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Cottrell L. Broadnax is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 18 He alleges that prison officials falsely charged him with battery on a peace officer and failed to 19 provide him medical services. (See Doc. 19 at 3.) In his complaint, Plaintiff states that he 20 “bypass[ed]” the inmate appeals process and did not present his claims for administrative review 21 prior to filing suit. (Id. at 1, 2.) 22 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with 23 respect to prison conditions under … any other Federal law … by a prisoner confined in any jail, 24 prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 25 exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and 26 “unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation 27 omitted). Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with 28 the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal 1 court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion requirement applies to all 2 inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the 3 relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 4 731, 741 (2001). Generally, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant must 5 plead and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. However, courts may dismiss a claim if failure to 6 exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 7 2014). 8 It is clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 9 remedies prior to filing suit. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days, to show 10 cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. Alternatively, 11 Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. 12 Plaintiff’s response to this order should be titled, “Response to Order to Show Cause.” 13 Plaintiff should make sure that his response is legible—it should not include fingerprints and 14 other miscellaneous markings that make it difficult to read. In addition, it should not include 15 exhibits or other evidence that is unrelated to exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff is 16 advised that failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice 17 for failure to obey a court order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Sheila K. Oberto 20 Dated: May 5, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28