Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01360/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01360-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC WILTON BURTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01360-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO SUPPLEMENT FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH PROOF OF

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 11)

Plaintiff Eric Wilton Burton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint

on February 25, 2010, in which he checked the locations on the form complaint to allege that he

had exhausted his available administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (Doc. 10.) On

March 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement the First Amended Complaint with

documents to show proof that he exhausted the available administrative remedies. (Doc. 11.) 

Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, not a pleading requirement. Jones v. Bock,

549 U.S. 199 (2007) (“We conclude that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the

PLRA, and that inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their

complaints.”) Thus, Plaintiff’s mere allegation that he exhausted the administrative remedies that

were available to him before filing the action suffice at the pleading stage. Plaintiff need not

submit any documentary evidence of his exhaustion unless and until any of the named defendants

files a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01360-GSA Document 12 Filed 03/15/10 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the First

Amended Complaint with documents to prove exhaustion of administrative remedies, filed

March 4, 2010, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 15, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01360-GSA Document 12 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2