Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00231-0/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

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

Plaintiff Myron Ray Reed (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 

21, 2014.1 He names psychiatrists Chinh R. Trinh, M.D. and J. Garewal, M.D., and psychologist L. 

Massac as Defendants. 

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 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 

1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner 

 

1

On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.

MYRON RAY REED,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TRINH, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14cv00231 DLB PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

THIRTY-DAY RESPONSE DEADLINE

Case 1:14-cv-00231-SAB Document 6 Filed 07/24/14 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

and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and 

the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 

532 (2002). 

In his complaint, Plaintiff concedes that he has not filed any administrative appeals. He states 

that it has been eight years since he was treated with allegedly dangerous medication, though he only 

learned of it recently while he was serving a new sentence. Plaintiff states that he was watching a 

television commercial that informed him that the Federal Drug Administration deemed three 

medications “as bad drugs.” ECF No. 1, at 3. Plaintiff states that it would be “inadequate” to file an 

administrative appeal for events that occurred eight years ago.

Pursuant to Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3084.8, an appeal must be 

filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the event, OR upon first having knowledge of the action being 

appealed. Therefore, the fact that eight years has elapsed is not an excuse to exhaustion where there 

was a delay in discovery of the claim.

It therefore appears that Plaintiff has filed suit prematurely without first exhausting in 

compliance with section 1997e(a). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) 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. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (in those rare cases 

where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, the complaint may be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00231-SAB Document 6 Filed 07/24/14 Page 2 of 2