(PC) Baker v. Lynch ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY RAY BAKER, No. 2:19-CV-2617-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Leave to File This 19 Complaint Emergently Without Exhausting My Inmate Pending 602 Appeal Grievance” (ECF 20 No. 3). 21 In his motion, plaintiff seeks leave of Court to “refile a new 42 U.S.C. § 1983 22 complaint. . . .” It appears plaintiff believes leave of Court is required because he has not yet 23 completed the administrative exhaustion process required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 24 Plaintiff’s motion is denied as unnecessary because plaintiff does not require leave of Court to 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// MASS SAU VVMEV CING INIT RAINING □□□ tw POI ee OY ev 1 file the pending action. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). However, nothing about this 2 | authorization to proceed with filing shall constitute satisfaction of or waiver of any exhaustion 3 | obligations otherwise applicable to this matter. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 | Dated: July 29, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 7 DENNIS M. COTA 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28