Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01026/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01026-3/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

JOHN ERIC WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. HTAY et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01026-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(ECF NO. 1)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff John Eric Williams, also known as Michael John Coleman (“Plaintiff”), is 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 6, 2015. (ECF No. 1). In 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff claims that he is not receiving a pain medication, specifically 

Gabapentin. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint also states that there are administrative remedies available to him, 

but that he has not completed the administrative remedies process. (Id. at p. 2). The California 

prison system provides for three levels of appellate review. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1. 

Plaintiff went through the first and second level of review, but did not appeal to the third level.

(Id. at p. 5). Plaintiff described in his complain that the reason he filed this lawsuit before 

Case 1:15-cv-01026-EPG Document 14 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

appealing to the third level is because Plaintiff was “in pain mentally and physically and 

spiritually [Plaintiff is] suffering nobody to turn to but the courts for relief.” (Id.).

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison 

conditions under section 1983 of this title, 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.” Exhaustion of administrative remedies must occur before the filing of the 

Complaint. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court notes that a 

dismissal for failure to exhaust is without prejudice. Id. This means that Plaintiff can still file 

a new lawsuit covering the same subject matter, assuming he has now exhausted his 

administrative remedies.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) 

days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why the case should not

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Failure to 

respond will result in dismissal of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01026-EPG Document 14 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2