(PC) Jaramillo v. Burnes ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDIE ANTHONY JARAMILLO, Case No. 1:21-cv-00712-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 14 J. BURNES, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 16 17 Rudie Anthony Jaramillo, a state prisoner, alleges the defendant-correctional officers 18 subjected him to excessive force and retaliation and failed to protect him from an attack by 19 another inmate. (Doc. 1.) In his complaint, Plaintiff admits that he has not yet exhausted his 20 administrative remedies. (Id. at 5, 7, 8.) Therefore, on October 22, 2021, the Court issued an order 21 to show cause, within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 22 administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 13.) Although more than 21 days have passed, 23 Plaintiff has failed to file a response to the order to show cause. 24 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect 25 to prison conditions under . . . any other Federal law . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, 26 or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 27 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and “unexhausted 28 claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation omitted). The 1 exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 2 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the 3 administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Inmates are required to 4 “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, 5 including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 6 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). Generally, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant 7 must plead and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. However, courts may dismiss a claim if 8 failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 9 (9th Cir. 2014). 10 It is clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 11 remedies prior to filing suit. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be 12 DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district 13 judge to this action. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 16 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 17 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 19 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: December 4, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28