Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00560-1/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

JAMES ARTHUR CASEY, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. TRUILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00560-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

James Arthur Casey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

complaint commencing this action on April 14, 2020. (ECF No. 1).

It appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his available 

administrative remedies before filing this action. Plaintiff appears to admit the administrative 

process was available, and that he did not submit his appeal to the highest level. (Id. at 5 & 6).

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to file a response within thirty days, explaining 

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. 

Such a dismissal would be without prejudice, so that Plaintiff may be able to refile the action after 

exhausting administrative remedies, to the extent those remedies are still available to him.

///

Case 1:20-cv-00560-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 4
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

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

“The California prison grievance system has three levels of review; an inmate exhausts 

administrative remedies by obtaining a decision at each level.” Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 

657 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(b) (2011) & Harvey v. Jordan, 605 

F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2010)). See also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.7(d)(3) (“The third level 

review constitutes the decision of the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation on an appeal, and shall be conducted by a designated representative under the 

supervision of the third level Appeals Chief or equivalent. The third level of review exhausts 

administrative remedies....”). 

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) 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). 

Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (per curiam). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to 

prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the 

relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, unless “the 

relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action 

whatsoever in response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); Ross 

v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1857, 1859 (2016).

“Under the PLRA, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for 

which redress is sought. The grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories, 

because [t]he primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its 

resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation. The grievance process is only required to alert 

prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may be 

sued.” Reyes, 810 F.3d at 659 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Case 1:20-cv-00560-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 4
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

3

As discussed in Ross, 136 S.Ct. at 1862, there are no “special circumstances” exceptions 

to the exhaustion requirement. The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be 

‘available’ to the prisoner.” Id. at 1856. The Ross Court described this qualification as follows:

[A]n administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what 

regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a 

simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to 

provide any relief to aggrieved inmates. See 532 U.S., at 736, 738, 

121 S.Ct. 1819....

Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, 

practically speaking, incapable of use....

And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart 

inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through 

machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.... As all those 

courts have recognized, such interference with an inmate's pursuit 

of relief renders the administrative process unavailable. And then, 

once again, § 1997e(a) poses no bar.

Id. at 1859–60.

“When prison officials improperly fail to process a prisoner’s grievance, the prisoner is 

deemed to have exhausted available administrative remedies.” Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 

1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2017).

If the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal 

without prejudice of the portions of the complaint barred by section 1997e(a). Jones, 549 U.S. at 

223–24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2005).

When it is clear on the face of the complaint that a plaintiff failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies, dismissal is proper. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 

2014).

II. ANALYSIS

It appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his available 

administrative remedies before filing this action. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges two claims. 

For both claims, Plaintiff states that there are administrative remedies available at his institution, 

that he submitted a request for relief, and that he did not appeal his request to the highest level. 

(ECF No. 1, pgs. 5 & 6). Plaintiff does not explain why he did not submit his request(s) to the 

Case 1:20-cv-00560-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

highest level.

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The Court notes that this 

dismissal would be without prejudice. Therefore, if Plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies 

in the future, he could refile the complaint.

The Court also welcomes Plaintiff to file any documents he believes demonstrates that he 

has exhausted all available administrative remedies. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s response may also 

contain any documents Plaintiff believes are responsive to the exhaustion issue. If Plaintiff fails 

to file a response the Court may recommend to a district judge that Plaintiff’s complaint be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Again, if Plaintiff’s 

case is dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Plaintiff may refile the complaint 

after he has exhausted administrative remedies to the extent those remedies are still available to 

him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00560-DAD-EPG Document 9 Filed 04/21/20 Page 4 of 4