Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01023/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01023-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON FAVOR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MAGANA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01023-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILING TO EXHAUST HIS 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff, Brandon Favor, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 6, 2015. 

(Doc. 1.) 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 

(2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required 

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

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). The exhaustion requirement applies to all suits 

relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516 (2002). 

Case 1:15-cv-01023-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 08/11/15 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

In the Complaint, though Plaintiff checked the boxes indicating that there is a grievance 

procedure at the institution of his confinement and that he presented the facts in his complaint for 

review through a grievance, he also checked the box indicating that the process to exhaust 

administrated remedies is not completed. (Doc. 1, Comp., p. 2.) Plaintiff explains his response 

that the process is not completed by stating: "I need to not have to property disposed or 

[illegible]. I here filed a CDCR 22 to A. Magana explaining my circumstances, condition 1 yr on 

18 month SHU term for Battery Against A Peace Officer, San Diego County District Attorney 

requested prosecution after 6 months, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE, Petitioner is still 

under review. Third Level Appeals Sacramento." (Id.) This statement is unclear at best and 

certainly does not provide explanation and/or an exception for filing suit prior to completing the 

administrative exhaustion process. Thus, it appears Plaintiff filed suit prematurely without first 

exhausting in compliance with section 1997e(a). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 

2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. . . .”).

Further, “proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary” and the exhaustion 

requirement may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective . . . 

appeal.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006). “Proper exhaustion 

demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules. . . .” Id. at 

90. Plaintiff's pleading fails to show that he completed the administrative exhaustion process on 

the claims in this action before he filed suit. This error is fatal to this action. 

Accordingly, within 30 days Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing why this 

action should not be dismissed, for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01023-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 2