Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00003-2/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

Nicolas Andres Alcala asserts Officers Lewis and Corless violated his civil rights during an 

incident in the Fresno County Jail. (Doc. 1 at 3-4) Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to state claims for the 

alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, Plaintiff admits that he has not filed a grievance 

or exhausted his administrative remedies. (Id. at 2) 

Significantly, according 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). Accordingly, the Supreme Court of the United 

States has determined “[t]here is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that 

unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 

(2007). 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 (2001). However, the failure to 

NICOLAS ANDRES ALCALA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00003 - JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR HIS FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Case 1:16-cv-00003-JLT Document 11 Filed 04/07/16 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

exhaust may be excused where the administrative remedies are rendered “unavailable,” with the 

plaintiff bearing the burden of demonstrating that the grievance process was unavailable to him through 

no fault of his own. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-23 (9th Cir. 2010); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 

F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff concedes there is grievance procedure available at his institution, yet indicates he has 

not filed an appeal or grievance concerning the facts alleged in his complaint. (Doc. 1 at 2) He

explains only that “there was a grievance form submitted by [an]other inmate re Christopher Lewis of 

his conduct.” (Doc. 1 at 2) However, the grievance process prohibits another inmate from submitting 

an appeal on behalf of another inmate. 15 CCR § 3084.2(g) [“An inmate or parolee shall not submit an 

appeal on behalf of another person.”] Thus, because Plaintiff filed his lawsuit without first exhausting 

his administrative remedies, dismissal of the action may be appropriate. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 

F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for 

dismissal. . . .”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of service, Plaintiff 

SHALL show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for his 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00003-JLT Document 11 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 2