Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077-19/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

The Court takes judicial notice of Francis v. Galaza, CV-F-99-5095 AWI TAG P. The Court may take 1

judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy

cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir. th

1993). Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1

(N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9 Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4 Cir. th th

1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6 Cir. 1980). th

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.L. BRYANT, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5077 REC SMS P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES 

Louis Frances (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 27, 2006, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings alleging that

Plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff opposed the Motion

contending that he was entitled to equitable tolling for the time his prior civil rights case raising

the same claims against the same defendants was pending in this Court. Defendants filed a 1

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 100 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Reply arguing that equitable tolling was in applicable to Plaintiff’s case. Defendants also

indicate in a footnote that the allegations in the instant action are unexhausted. Defendants cite

to the prior civil rights case wherein both the Eighth Amendment claim raised here as well as a

retaliation claim were found to be unexhausted. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on this

basis as to the Eighth Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings as to the

retaliation claim. A subsequently dismissal for failure to exhaust the retaliation claim is currently

pending before the Ninth Circuit. However, as noted above, it appears that the instant action

containing the Eighth Amendment claim raised and rejected previously as unexhausted remains

unexhausted in this action. The Court finds the resolution of the exhaustion issue may be

pertinent to Plaintiff’s claim for equitable tolling. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the action should not be dismissed for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies within twenty (20) days of the date of

service of this Order; and 

2. Defendants SHALL file a RESPONSE to Plaintiff’s Return to the Order to Show

Cause within twenty (20) days of the date Plaintiff files his Return to the Order to

Show Cause. Defendants may make argument regarding exhaustion and include

supporting evidence at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 100 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2