(PC) Watson v. Diaz ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM XAVIER WATSON, JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-01750-EPG 10 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD 11 v. NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 12 DIAZ, ET AL., RESPONSE DUE IN 30 DAYS 13 Defendants. 14 15 William Watson, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this 17 action on December 21, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) 18 It appears from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his available 19 administrative remedies before filing this action. Plaintiff appears to admit that the grievance 20 process was available to him, but that he did not complete the process. (ECF No. 1 at 3, 4.) 21 Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to file a response within thirty days, 22 explaining why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust available 23 administrative remedies. Such a dismissal would be without prejudice, so that Plaintiff may 24 refile the action after exhausting administrative remedies, to the extent those remedies are still 25 available to him. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 27 Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides that 28 “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any 1 other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 2 such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 3 Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing 4 suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199–1201 5 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to 6 prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the 7 relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, unless “the 8 relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action 9 whatsoever in response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); Ross 10 v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643 (2016). 11 “Under the PLRA, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong 12 for which redress is sought. The grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories, 13 because [t]he primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its 14 resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation. The grievance process is only required to alert 15 prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may 16 be sued.” Reyes, 810 F.3d at 659 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks 17 omitted). 18 As discussed in Ross, 578 U.S. at 639, there are no “special circumstances” exceptions 19 to the exhaustion requirement. The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed 20 be ‘available’ to the prisoner.” Id. The Ross Court described this qualification as follows: 21 [A]n administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite 22 what regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or 23 consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved 24 inmates. See 532 U.S., at 736, 738, 121 S.Ct. 1819. . . . 25 Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use. . . . 26 27 And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process 28 through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation. . . . As all those courts have recognized, such interference with an 1 inmate's pursuit of relief renders the administrative process 2 unavailable. And then, once again, § 1997e(a) poses no bar. 3 Id. at 643–44. 4 “When prison officials improperly fail to process a prisoner’s grievance, the prisoner is 5 deemed to have exhausted available administrative remedies.” Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 6 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2017). 7 If the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal 8 without prejudice of the portions of the complaint barred by section 1997e(a). Jones, 549 U.S. 9 at 223–24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2005). 10 II. ANALYSIS 11 Plaintiff appears to admit that the grievance process was available to him, but that he 12 did not complete the process for either of his two claims pleaded in his Complaint. (ECF No. 1, 13 p. 3, 4.) On the form Plaintiff used to draft his Complaint, in response to the question “Are 14 there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at 15 your institution?,” Plaintiff checked the box that states “Yes.” (Id. at 3). In response to the next 16 question on the form, “Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Claim I?,” Plaintiff 17 checked the box that states “Yes.” (Id.) However, Plaintiff responded “No” to the question, 18 “Did you appeal your request for relief on Claim I to the highest level?” and stated “The 19 process hasn’t been reviewed yet.” (Id.) Likewise, for Claim 2, Plaintiff acknowledged that the 20 remedies are available and that he filed a request for administrative relief for Claim 2, but did 21 not appeal it, because the request has “not yet [been] reviewed.” (Id. at 4). 22 Thus, it appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his 23 available administrative remedies before filing this action. Accordingly, the Court will order 24 Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust available 25 administrative remedies. The Court notes that this dismissal would be without prejudice. 26 Therefore, if Plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies in the future, he could refile the 27 complaint. 28 I I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, within 30 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff 3 show cause why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to 4 || exhaust available administrative remedies. If Plaintiff fails to file a response the Court may 5 ||recommend to a district judge that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for 6 || failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9|| Dated: _ January 8, 2024 [Jee hey 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28