Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214-17/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

THOMAS K. MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZACHERY JONES, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REGARDING EXHAUSTION OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AS 

UNNECESSARY

 (ECF No. 52)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to “enter a motion to prove my exhaustion 

of my administra[tive] remedies,” filed April 17, 2024. Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied. 

I.

DISCUSSION

The Prison Litigation Reform Act 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). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and 

“unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). 

Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the 

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 53 Filed 04/18/24 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

applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal 

court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion requirement applies to all 

inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the 

relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 

731, 741 (2001).

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, which the 

defendant must plead and prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. The defendant bears the burden of 

producing evidence that proves a failure to exhaust; and, summary judgment is appropriate only if 

the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows the plaintiff 

failed to exhaust. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). On a motion for summary 

judgment, the defendant must prove (1) the existence of an available administrative remedy and 

(2) that Plaintiff failed to exhaust that remedy. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 

2015) (citations omitted). If the defendant meets this burden, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff, 

who must show that there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally 

available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” Id. (citations omitted). If the 

plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the court must dismiss the unexhausted claims or action without 

prejudice. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175 (9th Cir. 2005).

As stated above, Plaintiff is not required to plead and/or prove exhaustion of the 

administrative remedies because it is an affirmative defense. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to 

“enter a motion” to prove exhaustion of the administrative remedies is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 53 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 2