Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03467/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03467-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT C. HOHMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROB ST. ANDRE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-3467 CSK P

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff appears pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the 

statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate 

order, the Court will direct the appropriate agency to collect twenty percent of the preceding 

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court 

each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

///

Case 2:24-cv-03467-CSK Document 8 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

For the following reasons, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

II. SCREENING STANDARDS

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 

Case 2:24-cv-03467-CSK Document 8 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

III. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 5, 2024 in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On December 11, 2024, the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California transferred this action to this court. (ECF 

No. 5.)

Named as defendants are High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) Warden Rob St. Andre and 

the HDSP Trust Account Office. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he is a disabled veteran 

of the United States Coast Guard. (Id.) The Department of Veteran’s Affairs recently awarded 

plaintiff compensation for his service. (Id. at 2-3.) The Department of Treasury sent four checks 

to HDSP in plaintiff’s name. (Id. at 3.) Defendant HDSP Trust Office is refusing to cash the 

checks sent to plaintiff by the Department of Treasury. (Id.) The first check arrived in August 

2024 and plaintiff has received three more checks since that time. (Id.) Plaintiff’s fiancé, who 

has power of attorney over plaintiff’s affairs, contacted the prison to have the checks turned over 

to her. (Id.) The prison denied this request by plaintiff’s fiancé. (Id.) Plaintiff contacted the 

Department of Veteran’s Affairs to change the address where plaintiff’s checks are sent, but 

plaintiff has received no response to this request. (Id.) As relief, plaintiff requests that all checks 

addressed to him from the Department of Treasury be cashed into plaintiff’s trust account or the 

checks be released to plaintiff’s fiancé. (Id.) 

In his complaint, plaintiff states that there is a grievance procedure at HDSP but that 

plaintiff did not present the facts raised in his complaint for review through the grievance 

procedure. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states that he did not present his claim for review through the 

grievance procedure because his claim “is time sensitive at this point in time. The Treasury 

checks being withheld by the trust account office at the prison need to be cashed within 180 days 

of being drafted.” (Id. at 2.)

Case 2:24-cv-03467-CSK Document 8 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides that 

“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any 

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits 

relating to prison life. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required 

regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, 

unless “the relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any 

action whatsoever in response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736 (2001); see

also Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643 (2016).

“Under the PLRA, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for 

which redress is sought. The grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories, 

because [t]he primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its 

resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation. The grievance process is only required to alert 

prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may be 

sued.” Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted).

As discussed in Ross, there are no “special circumstances” exceptions to the exhaustion 

requirement. 578 U.S. at 639. The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be 

‘available’ to the prisoner.” Id. The Ross Court described this qualification as follows:

[A]n administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what 

regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a 

simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to 

provide any relief to aggrieved inmates. See 532 U.S., at 736, 738....

Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, 

practically speaking, incapable of use....

And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart 

inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through 

machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.... As all those courts 

Case 2:24-cv-03467-CSK Document 8 Filed 12/19/24 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

have recognized, such interference with an inmate’s pursuit of relief 

renders the administrative process unavailable. [Footnote omitted.] 

And then, once again, § 1997e(a) poses no bar.

Id. at 643-44.

When it is clear on the face of the complaint that a plaintiff failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies, dismissal is proper. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 

2014). 

V. ANALYSIS

It is clear from the face of the complaint that plaintiff did not exhaust available 

administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause 

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This 

Court notes that the dismissal would be without prejudice. Therefore, if plaintiff exhausts his 

administrative remedies in the future, he could refile the complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order 

to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; failure to respond to this 

order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action. 

Dated: December 18, 2024

Hohm3467.56/2

Case 2:24-cv-03467-CSK Document 8 Filed 12/19/24 Page 5 of 5