Bradford v. Javate ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Case No. 20-cv-06833-PJH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A 9 v. RESPONSE 10 JAVATE, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983. Plaintiff seems to imply that he has three prior strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915(g). He seeks to proceed with this case despite the prior strikes because he states 16 he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. In addition, plaintiff seeks to be 17 excused from exhausting his administrative remedies due to an ongoing conspiracy 18 against him. While plaintiff may be able to proceed with this case even if he is three 19 strikes barred, he still must exhaust administrative remedies. 20 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 21 (1996) (“PLRA”), amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought 22 with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a 23 prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 24 remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 25 Exhaustion is mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the district court. 26 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 27 (2001)). Courts may not create their own “special circumstances” exceptions to the 1 Circuit’s ruling that failure to exhaust was justified where prisoner reasonably—even 2 though mistakenly—believed he had exhausted remedies). “Prisoners must now exhaust 3 all ‘available’ remedies, not just those that meet federal standards.” Woodford, 548 U.S. 4 at 84. Even when the relief sought cannot be granted by the administrative process, i.e., 5 monetary damages, a prisoner must still exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 85-86 6 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 734). 7 Plaintiff shall file a response by November 27, 2020, addressing why this case 8 should not be dismissed without prejudice due to failure to exhaust. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 28, 2020 11 12 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27