(PC) Flores v. Cuevas ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JAVIER FLORES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01412-CDB (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED EXTENSION OF TIME TO 10 v. RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AS MODIFIED 11 J. CUEVAS, (Doc. 1) 12 Defendant. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 13 CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 14 ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 15 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Background 18 Plaintiff Javier Flores, a state inmate proceeding pro se, initiated this action with the filing 19 of a complaint in the California Superior Court for the County of Kings, alleging, among other 20 things, violations of his rights by Defendant J. Cuevas under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth 21 Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1 p. 7). 22 A. Defendant’s Request for Screening 23 Defendant removed the action to this Court on November 18, 2024. (Doc. 1 pp. 1-3). In 24 his notice of removal, Defendant requests the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915A and grant Defendant 30 days to respond to the complaint from the date of service 26 of the Court’s order screening the complaint. Id. at 3. 27 Defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond to the complaint after service of the Court’s screening order will be granted. The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff’s 1 complaint in due course. 2 B. Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies 3 In his Complaint, Plaintiff does not indicate or show he has exhausted his administrative 4 remedies between December 28, 2023—the date of the subject incident—and September 3, 2024, 5 the date he filed his complaint. 6 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with 7 respect to prison conditions under . . . any other Federal law . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, 8 prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 9 exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and 10 “unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation 11 omitted). The exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. 12 Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the 13 administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 14 Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with 15 the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal 16 court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). In California, state-inmate grievances are 17 subject to two levels of review. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3481(a), 3999.226(a)(1). Prisoners 18 must generally receive a disposition from the second level of review before administrative 19 remedies are deemed exhausted. See id. §§ 3483(m)(1), 3486(m), 3999.226(h); but see id. § 20 3483(m)(2). In general, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead 21 and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. However, courts may dismiss a claim if failure to exhaust 22 is clear on the face of the complaint. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). 23 Here, it appears clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust 24 administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show 25 cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust 26 Conclusion and Order 27 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1 | service of an assigned district judge’s adoption of any findings and recommendations following 2 | screening of the complaint finding cognizable claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)@); and 3 (2) Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, shall show cause in 4 | writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 5 | Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order may result in the imposition of 6 | sanctions, up to and including a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 7 | ITIS ORDERED. | Dated: _ November 21, 2024 | hr Rr 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28