Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01108/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01108-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

MICHAEL BENANTI, 

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOERER, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01108-CDB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES 

21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael Benanti is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint with this Court on November 19, 2024. (Doc. 10). A brief 

review of the complaint reveals the incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred on August 

9, 2024. Id. at 4.

DISCUSSION

In his Complaint, Plaintiff indicates that there are not any administrative remedies 

(grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available where he is incarcerated. Id. Plaintiff 

indicates that he “was denied access to administrative remedies and cut off from the world for 

over 60 days.” Id. Specifically, Plaintiff provides that the “Unit Team . . . were responsible to 

make Administrative Remedy Forms (to include Federal Tort Claim Act forms) available to the 

Plaintiff[, and that he] had no way to approach the Unit Team members to request administrative 

Case 1:24-cv-01108-JLT-CDB Document 13 Filed 11/21/24 Page 1 of 4
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

remedy forms.” Id. Plaintiff states he requested informal resolution of issues and administrative 

remedy forms but the unit team members in question “did not provide any access to [the forms] 

during this time period”—when “USP Atwater was locked down from on or about [August 9, 

2024 to October 9, 2024].” Id. Though Plaintiff indicates that “[t]he complete [and] utter denial 

of access [to] any form of recourse for 2 months makes this complaint ripe for court 

intervention[,]” Plaintiff does not state whether he has exhausted his remedies between the 

relevant dates of the lockdown incident to November 19, 2024, the date he signed his complaint.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with 

respect to prison conditions under . . . 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). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and 

“unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation 

omitted). The exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. 

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the

administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with 

the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal 

court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). In California, state-inmate grievances are 

subject to two levels of review. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3481(a), 3999.226(a)(1). Prisoners 

must generally receive a disposition from the second level of review before administrative 

remedies are deemed exhausted. See id. §§ 3483(m)(1), 3486(m), 3999.226(h); but see id. § 

3483(m)(2).

In general, failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead and 

prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. However, courts may dismiss a claim if failure to exhaust is 

clear on the face of the complaint. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014).

Here, it appears clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff appears to suggest he should be relieved of 

the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies because, during the 60-day lockdown, he was 

Case 1:24-cv-01108-JLT-CDB Document 13 Filed 11/21/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

unable to access grievance forms. However, Plaintiff advances no allegations to suggest this was 

anything other than a temporary unavailability. Thus, Plaintiff does not demonstrate whether any 

efforts by him to exhaust administrative remedies after the lockdown ended where thwarted. 

Thus, he has not complied with the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies. See, e.g.,

Talley v. Clark, 111 F.4th 255, 264 (3d Cir. 2024) (“It is true that administrative remedies were 

temporarily ‘unavailable’ while Talley was on suicide watch without access to writing materials, 

but that does not excuse his failure to request an extension once he was released and able to 

complete the necessary forms.”); Smith v. Hendrick, No. 1:21-cv-1704, 2024 WL 4244831, at *7 

(M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2024) (“Smith was purportedly denied access to grievance forms during the 

approximately three-month period that he was housed in the RHU, but he did not request an 

extension of time to file a grievance once he was removed from the RHU. Smith’s failure to 

request an extension of time once the impediment to filing a grievance was removed constitutes a 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”) (citing Talley, 111 F.4th at 264); Roman v. Knowles, 

No. 07cv1343-JLS (POR), 2011 WL 3741012, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2011) (“Plaintiff does not 

plead facts sufficient to establish an intentional and systematic obstruction to administrative 

remedies that, on its own, would render those remedies unavailable, and excuse his inability to 

exhaust them. Plaintiff’s pleadings themselves contain facts sufficient to establish that these 

remedies were only temporarily unavailable and thus exhaustion should not be excused.”); Dean 

v. Prison Health Servs., No. 10-14135, 2011 WL 1630114, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2011) 

(“The mere fact that forms were temporarily unavailable to Plaintiff is insufficient to establish 

exhaustion”) (citing cases)

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:24-cv-01108-JLT-CDB Document 13 Filed 11/21/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this 

order, to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies.

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01108-JLT-CDB Document 13 Filed 11/21/24 Page 4 of 4