Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01639/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01639-0/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

EDWIN GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01639-JLT (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)

30-DAY DEADLINE

In this action, Edwin Garcia claims various prison officials have stolen his intellectual 

property, in the form of ideas for an invention he has described on papers the officials are 

withholding from him. (Doc. 1 at 3-4) He seeks $20 million in compensatory damages and an 

order stopping the officials from selling his invention. Id. at 5. However, he admits he has not 

exhausted the prison grievance process. Id. at 2. 

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). 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, 

Case 1:15-cv-01639-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 11/17/15 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

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 (2002). 

Plaintiff concedes that though there is administrative remedy process available at his 

institution, he has not filed an appeal or grievance concerning the facts contained in his Complaint. 

His explanation for not filing an appeal or grievance and exhausting the process before filing suit 

is that CDCR’s inmate appeal process in “is only for decision, action, condition, policy or 

regulation having a material adverse [sic] upon ones welfare and for which there is no other 

prescribed method of dept. review/remedy available.” (Doc. 1, Comp., p. 2.) 

However, couching the relief he seeks as somehow different from the that relief that he 

may obtain under the PLRA, is a game of semantics the Court will not play. Prisoners are 

required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit; Plaintiff’s lawsuit is 

no exception. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (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), and the 

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 

U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Even though Plaintiff’s claims are not based on more usual claims related

to conditions of confinement, he is required to exhaust his administrative remedies before being 

allowed to proceed on any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed his lawsuit prematurely without first exhausting in compliance with section 

1997e(a). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to 

nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. . . .”). Accordingly, within 30 days, Plaintiff is 

ORDERED to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, 

for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01639-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 2