Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00356/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00356-2/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

GARETH PERRY, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

C. CERVANTES, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00356-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Gareth Perry (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action. 

It appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his available 

administrative remedies before filing this action. Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to 

file a response within 30 days, explaining why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. Such dismissal would be without prejudice, so that Plaintiff 

may refile the case once he has exhausted the available administrative remedies (if it is still 

possible to do so).

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides that 

“[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). 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has summarized the

regulations governing the federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) grievance process: 

Case 1:20-cv-00356-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 4
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

The BOP grievance process is set forth at 28 C.F.R. § 542.13–.15. 

As a first step in this process, an inmate normally must present his 

complaint informally to prison staff using a BP–8 form. If the 

informal complaint does not resolve the dispute, the inmate may 

make an “Administrative Remedy Request” concerning the 

dispute to the prison Warden using a BP–9 form. The BP–8 and 

BP–9 are linked. Both forms involve a complaint arising out of the 

same incident, and both forms must be submitted within 20 

calendar days of the date of that incident. 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a).

An extension of time is available upon a showing of valid reason 

for delay. Section 542.14(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of 

reasons that justify an extension of time. Valid reasons “include ... 

an extended period in-transit during which the inmate was 

separated from documents needed to prepare the Request or 

Appeal.” Id.

If the Warden renders an adverse decision on the BP–9, the inmate 

may appeal to the Regional Director using a BP–10 form. 28 

C.F.R. § 542.15(a). The BP–10 must be submitted to the Regional 

Director within 20 calendar days of the date of the Warden's 

decision. Id. As with the time period for filing a BP–9, an extension 

of time is available upon a showing of a valid reason. Id. Section 

542.15(a) provides that “[v]alid reasons for delay include those 

situations described in § 542.14(b).” Id.

The inmate may appeal an adverse decision by the Regional 

Director to the Central Office (also called the General Counsel) of 

the BOP using a BP–11 form. Id. The BP–11 must be submitted to 

the Central Office within 30 calendar days from the date of the 

Regional Director's decision. Id. As with the time period for filing 

a BP–9 and a BP–10, an extension is available upon the showing 

of a valid reason as described in § 542.14(b). Id.

Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1219–20 (9th Cir. 2010) (alterations in original) (footnote 

omitted). “Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal.” 28 C.F.R. § 

542.15(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) (per curiam). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating 

to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of 

the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, unless “the 

Case 1:20-cv-00356-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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

relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action 

whatsoever in response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); 

Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1857, 1859 (2016).

“Under the PLRA, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong 

for which redress is sought. The grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories, 

because [t]he primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its 

resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation. The grievance process is only required to alert 

prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may 

be sued.” Reyes, 810 F.3d at 659 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

As discussed in Ross, 136 S.Ct. at 1862, there are no “special circumstances” 

exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies 

must indeed be ‘available’ to the prisoner.” Id. at 1856. The Ross Court described this 

qualification as follows:

[A]n administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what 

regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a 

simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to 

provide any relief to aggrieved inmates. See 532 U.S., at 736, 738, 

121 S.Ct. 1819....

Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it 

becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use....

And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart 

inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through 

machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.... As all those 

courts have recognized, such interference with an inmate’s pursuit 

of relief renders the administrative process unavailable. And then, 

once again, § 1997e(a) poses no bar.

Id. at 1859–60.

“When prison officials improperly fail to process a prisoner’s grievance, the prisoner is 

deemed to have exhausted available administrative remedies.” Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 

1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2017).

If the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal 

Case 1:20-cv-00356-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 4
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

without prejudice of the portions of the complaint barred by section 1997e(a). Jones, 549 U.S. 

at 223–24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2005).

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff mailed the complaint commencing this action to the Court on February 23, 

2020. (ECF No. 1, p. 6). The incident that led to the disciplinary hearing that Plaintiff 

challenges in his complaint occurred on January 4, 2020. (Id. at 1). The disciplinary hearing, 

which appears to be central to most (if not all) of Plaintiff’s claims, occurred on February 21, 

2020. (Id. at 3). As only two days passed from the day of the disciplinary hearing to the day 

Plaintiff mailed his complaint to the Court, it appears from the face of the complaint that 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit.

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The Court notes that this 

dismissal would be without prejudice. 

VII. CONCLUSION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

It appears, based on the face of the complaint, that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

available administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 

ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 

show cause why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust 

available administrative remedies. Again, the dismissal would be without prejudice, so that 

Plaintiff may refile the case once he has exhausted the available administrative remedies (if it is 

still possible to do so).

If Plaintiff fails to file a response, the Court will recommend to a district judge that this 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00356-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 03/12/20 Page 4 of 4