Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01611/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01611-13/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

IRA GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN CHAKOTOS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01611 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

CONCERNING EXHAUSTION

[ECF No. 50]

Plaintiff Ira Green (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint, filed on May 3, 2013, against Defendant Chakotos for a claim of 

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant filed an answer to the SAC 

on August 25, 2014, and the Court issued a scheduling order on August 26, 2014.

On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Motion Based on Exhaustion.” It is 

unclear from the motion what Plaintiff is seeking. Plaintiff is advised that exhaustion of 

administrative remedies is not yet at issue in this case. Pursuant to 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). 

However, the failure to exhaust in compliance with section 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense under 

which the defendant has the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion. Jones, 549 

Case 1:11-cv-01611-LJO-DLB Document 59 Filed 11/12/14 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

U.S. at 216; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In this case, the affirmative 

defense may be raised in a motion for summary judgment by Defendant, but not until then. If it is 

raised by Defendant, Plaintiff may address the issue at that time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion concerning exhaustion is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 11, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01611-LJO-DLB Document 59 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 2