Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01144-1/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

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

MARIO H. GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01144-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Mario H. Gomez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on September 26, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff claims 

that correctional officers at Kern Valley State Prison failed to protect him from being stabbed 

by another inmate. (Id. at 11).1

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

administrative remedies before filing this action. (Id. at 2, 4). 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 refile the action after exhausting administrative 

remedies, to the extent those remedies are still available to him. In the alternative, Plaintiff 

1 Page numbers cited refer to the pagination indicated at the bottom of each page.

Case 1:24-cv-01144-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/04/24 Page 1 of 4
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

may file a notice of voluntary dismissal, in which case the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s case 

without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the complaint after exhausting administrative remedies.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

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, 578 U.S. 632, 643 (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).

As discussed in Ross, 578 U.S. at 639, 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. 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 

Case 1:24-cv-01144-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 4
3

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

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 643–44.

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. Plaintiff complains of conduct that occurred 

on August 19, 2024 (ECF No. 1 at 8). Plaintiff’s complaint was signed on September 23, 2024, 

and was filed on September 26, 2024. (Id. at 2, 4). Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the 

grievance procedure is “still in process” and that he filed a grievance on August 26, 2024, with 

the final review due by November 28, 2024. (Id. at 2-3). 

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

dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. 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.

In response to this order, the Court also welcomes Plaintiff to file any documents he 

believes demonstrates that he has exhausted all available administrative remedies. 

Case 1:24-cv-01144-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/04/24 Page 3 of 4
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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, 

1. 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.

2. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal, in which case the 

Court will dismiss the case without prejudice such that Plaintiff may refile the case 

after exhausting administrative remedies.

3. A failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01144-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 10/04/24 Page 4 of 4