Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01849/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01849-0/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

CECILIA FRAHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ROBERT MITCHELL, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01849-SKO PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILUE TO EXHAUST

PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 1)

TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Cecilia Fraher, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 14, 2013.

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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, 127 S.Ct. 910 

(2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required 

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

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement 

applies to all suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 

(2002). 

Case 1:13-cv-01849-SKO Document 5 Filed 11/15/13 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

In her complaint, Plaintiff concedes that while she filed an appeal, the process has not yet 

been completed, and Plaintiff’s exhibit show that she submitted her appeal to the final level of

review on November 6, 2013. (Doc. 1, Comp., pp. 2, 12.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff filed suit 

prematurely without first exhausting in compliance with section 1997e(a).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause within twenty (20) days

from the date of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, 

for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. . . .”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01849-SKO Document 5 Filed 11/15/13 Page 2 of 2